# Agroecological practices supporting food production and reducing food insecurity in developing countries

Maria Luisa Paracchini, Eric Justes, Alexander Wezel, Pier Carlo Zingari, Rémi Kahane, Sidney Masden, E. Scopel, A. Héraut, P. Bhérer-Breton, R. Buckley, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Maria Luisa Paracchini, Eric Justes, Alexander Wezel, Pier Carlo Zingari, Rémi Kahane, et al.. Agroecological practices supporting food production and reducing food insecurity in developing countries: A study on scientific literature in 17 countries. [Technical Report] JRC121570, Joint research Center, Commission Européenne. 2020. hal-03653197

HAL Id: hal-03653197

https://isara.hal.science/hal-03653197

Submitted on 27 Apr 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

JRC TECHNICAL REPORT

# Agroecological practices supporting food production and reducing food insecurity in developing countries

*A study on scientific literature in 17 countries*

Paracchini M.L., Justes E., Wezel A., Zingari P.C., Kahane R., Madsen S., Scopel E., Héraut A. Bhérer-Breton P., Buckley R., Colbert E., Kapalla D., Sorge M., Adu Asieduwaa G., Bezner Kerr R., Maes O., Negre T.

2020

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Joint
Research
Centre

EUR 30329 EN
This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission's science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

**EU Science Hub**

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc

JRC121570

EUR 30329 EN

PDF

ISBN 978-92-76-21077-1

ISSN 1831-9424

doi:10.2760/82475

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020

© European Union, 2020

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

All content © European Union, 2020, except:

Photos: Cover page, Maria Luisa Paracchini, 2009; Page 9: Figure 1, Cirad; Figure 2, Pierre Silvie - Cirad; Page 11: Figure 3 and Figure 4, Caroline Dangleant - Cirad.; Page 17: Figure 5 and Figure 6, Patrick Dugué - Cirad; Page 18: Figure 7, Jacques Chantereau, - Cirad, Figure 8, X. N. Gnoumou, Source: httpswww.researchgate.netfigureSorgho-dans-les-poquets-de-zai-eau-Cliche-X-N-Gnoumou-2013-23-COLLECTE-DES-DONNEES_fig1_315615098; Page 58: Figure 9, Agrisud, Figure 10, F Grunewald - Cirad

Images: Page 70: FAO, Source: http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl991e.pdf

How to cite this report: Paracchini, M.L., Justes, E., Wezel, A., Zingari, P.C., Kahane, R., Madsen, S., Scopel, E., Héraut, A. Bhérer-Breton, P., Buckley, R., Colbert, E., Kapalla, D., Sorge, M., Adu Asieduwaa, G., Bezner Kerr, R., Maes, O., Negre, T, Agroecological practices supporting food production and reducing food insecurity in developing countries - A study on scientific literature in 17 countries., EUR 30329 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-21077-1, doi:10.2760/82475, JRC121570.
# Contents

<table><tr><td>Acknowledgements</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Abstract</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>1 Introduction</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>2 Methodology for document selection and analysis</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2.1 Screening and sorting of scientific papers in the Web of Sciences database</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2.2 Grey literature screening</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>2.3 From screened papers to relevant literature selection</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>2.4 Summarizing selected documents in a table</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>2.5 Preparation of Country Briefs</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>2.6 General synthesis</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>3 Country briefs on agroecology</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>3.1 Senegal</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>3.2 Mali</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>3.3 Burkina Faso</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>3.4 Niger</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>3.5 Ghana</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>3.6 Togo</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>3.7 Benin</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>3.8 Ethiopia</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>3.9 Kenya</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>3.10 Tanzania</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>3.11 Malawi</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>3.12 Zimbabwe</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>3.13 Madagascar</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>3.14 Lao People's Democratic Republic</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>3.15 Guatemala</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>3.16 Nicaragua</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>3.17 Cuba</td><td>68</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>4 General synthesis: what science is telling us on agroecology, and benefits deriving from agroecological practices on food security - a study on 17 food insecure countries</td><td>73</td></tr></table>
Acknowledgements

This report includes the results of studies carried out under the following contracts :

CT-EX2019D351242-101 (Agroecology for food insecure countries)

CT-EX2019D350866-101 (Agroecology for food insecure countries)

CT-EX2018D338061-101 (Agroecology for food insecure countries)

Authors

Paracchini M.L.<fnref n="1" />, Justes, E.<fnref n="2" />, Wezel<fnref n="3" />, A., Zingari<fnref n="4" />, Kahane, R. <fnref n="2" />, P.C., Madsen, S. <fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="5" />, Scopel, E. <fnref n="2" />, Héraut, A. <fnref n="2" />, Bhérer-Breton, P. <fnref n="3" />, Buckley, R. <fnref n="3" />, Colbert, E. <fnref n="3" />, Kapalla, D. <fnref n="3" />, Sorge, M. <fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="5" />, Adu Asieduwaa, G. <fnref n="3" />, Bezner Kerr, R. <fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="5" />, Maes, O. <fnref n="1" />, Negre, T. <fnref n="1" />

<footnote n="1">¹ Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Directorate D Sustainable Resources, Food Security Unit, Ispra, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² CIRAD - Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ ISARA, AgroSchool for Life, Agroecology and Environment research unit, Lyon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Società Botanica Italiana, Firenze, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Cornell University, Ithaca, USA</footnote>
**Abstract**

This report represents the initial effort to structure existing knowledge about agroecology as farming and food system in support of the EC Knowledge Centre on Food and Nutrition Security (https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/global-food-nutrition-security_en). Scientific literature has been screened on a selection of developing countries in which food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture represent a focal sector for EU intervention (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lao PDR, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Zimbabwe). In total, 172 documents have been synthesised, a country brief has been prepared for each investigated country, and some general conclusions have been drawn.

Overall, the majority of analysed publications focuses on small scale, extensive farming systems that produce food at subsistence levels and for sale on local markets. This includes smallholder farming producing staple crops (millet, sorghum, yam, etc.) or vegetable gardening for local markets. The agroecological practices that are mostly studied are: agroforestry, intercropping (or mixed cropping), introduction of legumes in rotations, soil and water conservation practices (mulching, return of crop residues, zaï holes etc.), use of animal manure, biocontrol methods to mitigate chemical pesticide use.

At least 50% of the analysed papers report a positive contribution of agroecological practices to food security, mostly due to improved yields and/or a better economic situation of producers. The improvement of soil quality is key to improve yields and consequently income and food security; this can be achieved using various practices including the use of residue mulch from tree leaves in agroforestry, as well as crop mixtures or intercropping and longer more diversified crop rotations. Moreover, higher on-farm crop species diversity often results in more diversified diets. Diversified crop systems, including the introduction of agroforestry, improve household nutritional status and have positive links to better health conditions. On the other hand, the lack of access to inputs is an important limitation to the improvement of soil fertility (manure, mineral fertilizer, leaf litter, etc.), which remains a major hindrance for food security.

The agroecological cultivation of cash crops, post-harvest practices and crop-livestock integration were overall lacking in the scientific analyses, as well as the assessments of fully agroecological systems compared to individual agroecological practices or groups of practices.

The report identifies three factors required for the substantial development of agroecology at the farm level: more financial support from the government, greater scientific knowledge on novel agroecological practices, and a higher market value for agroecological products.
# 1 Introduction

The Knowledge Centre for Global Food and Nutrition Security (KC FNS, https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/global-food-nutrition-security_en) supports the EU global commitment to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition through a dedicated, reinforced science-policy interface and a fostered inter-policy dialogue.

Agroecology is one of the nine priority topics constituting the core activities of the KC FNS. This report represents the initial effort to map existing knowledge on agroecological processes in selected countries, chosen among the 60 developing countries in which food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture represent a focal sector for EU intervention. The countries are: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lao PDR, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo<fnref n="1" />, Zimbabwe.

The report focuses on the identification and organization of existing scientific knowledge on the effectiveness of agroecology, in agronomic terms (e.g. effectiveness of individual farming practices), as well as by analyzing agroecology as farming and food system. In particular, contribution to food and nutrition security and evidence of economic, social, environmental benefits are sought.

The definition of agroecology and its approaches adopted in this frame is the one proposed by the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on Food Security and Nutrition in their Report 14 (HLPE, 2019)<fnref n="2" />:

> "Agroecological approaches favour the use of natural processes, limit the use of purchased inputs, promote closed cycles with minimal negative externalities and stress the importance of local knowledge and participatory processes that develop knowledge and practice through experience, as well as more conventional scientific methods [...] Agroecological approaches recognize that agrifood systems are coupled social-ecological systems from food production to consumption and involve science, practice and a social movement, as well as their holistic integration, to address food and nutrition security".

The identification of relevant scientific evidence is based on an adapted protocol for systematic literature review. The aim is not to have a comprehensive literature review of all the papers addressing agroecology, but to identify a set of papers that is able to provide information on the state of the art of knowledge in each country. Search and analysis were carried out individually on each of the selected countries.

The workflow adopted in the analysis is structured in four main steps, each one explained in detail in the following sections of the report:

Step 1. A common methodology was set up to allow the identification of a minimum number of relevant papers per country. Main scientific databases were screened, and grey literature repositories as well. The decision to include grey literature as additional source of information was taken due to the dishomogeneity of research results across the regions, with some countries being the object of extended scientific reporting and others lacking research efforts or not reported yet.

Step 2. Each selected paper was summarized in a table, structured in seven main themes and 38 sub-themes, spanning from the description of farming practices to that of economic benefits.

Step 3. The preparation of country briefs on agroecology for each of the analysed countries, synthesizing available evidence.

Step 4. General synthesis of main findings on the current status of scientific knowledge on agroecology in the analysed countries.

It is important to note that the country briefs presented in this report do not aim at describing the current state of implementation of agroecology in each country, but what is known about the effectiveness of such interventions at the scientific level. The fact that some positive (or negative) aspects are not addressed does not mean that they do not exist, but rather that they have not been the object of research. Overall the study allows drawing some conclusions both on the benefits provided by the agroecological approach and on knowledge gaps.

<footnote n="1">¹ Togo is included as country where food security and rural development are target sectors of the European Development Fund (https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/where-we-work/togo_en)</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² HLPE. 2019. Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.</footnote>
# 2 Methodology for document selection and analysis

## 2.1 Screening and sorting of scientific papers in the Web of Sciences database

The Web of Sciences (WoS) search engine was chosen as main source to build the database of scientific articles in the study.

For this purpose, three search strings, defined for the purpose of this study, were built:

* Search string 1: (agroecolog* OR agro-ecolog* OR diversified farming systems OR ecological agriculture OR sustainable agriculture OR ecological intensification OR low input* OR organic farming) AND TS= (food security OR food insecur* OR food access* OR food sufficien* OR food insufficien*) AND CU=CountryName

* Search string 2: (agroecolog* OR agro-ecolog* OR diversified farming systems OR ecological agriculture OR sustainable agriculture OR ecological intensification OR intercrop* OR low input* OR agroforest* OR legume* OR green manure OR cover crop* OR no pesticides OR organic farming) AND TS=(food security OR food insecur* OR food access* OR food sufficien* OR food insufficien*) AND CU=CountryName

* Search string 3: (agroecolog* OR agro-ecolog* OR diversified farming systems OR ecological agriculture OR sustainable agriculture OR ecological intensification OR low input* OR organic farming) AND CU=CountryName

Where: TS = Topic; CU=Country/Region

The search strings were applied for each concerned country (Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, Ghana, Niger, Togo, Kenya, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Madagascar, Tanzania, Lao PDR, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua), though for the countries of Malawi, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania, Congo, Ghana, Niger, Togo, and Zimbabwe, only Search string 1 and Search string 2 were applied, as Search string 3 was found to be too broad, including a large number of articles, of which many irrelevant for the scope of the analysis, and some overlapping substantially with the returns of the other search strings. Instead, in addition to the Web of Science database, Search strings 1 and 2 were applied on the CAB Abstracts research database.

On the resulting set of articles, an additional criterion was applied: only articles published after the year 2000 were retained.

To identify the final selection of papers to be summarized, two procedures were possible:

1) A refined sorting was carried out on the basis of WoS study categories, since some documents retrieved by the search strings concerned topics not sufficiently related to agroecological practices. The keywords used were the following:

* Agriculture multidisciplinary

* Agronomy

* Environmental sciences

* Water resources

* Ecology

* Green sustainable science technologies

* Multidisciplinary sciences

* Agriculture dairy animal science

* Nutrition dietetics

* Forestry

* Horticulture

Papers resulting from this sorting were then screened according to the selection process described in 2.3.

2) After removing duplicates between the different equations and databases, each article was screened, reading the abstract and then «stoplighting» each article as either excluded (red), unsure if should be excluded (yellow) and green (include). This judgement was based on initial signs from the abstract that the research focused on some of the criteria outlined below in 2.3. After discussion between the team members, marginal articles were revisited to make a final call on exclusion or inclusion.
## 2.2 Grey literature screening

Articles from other sources (e.g. NGO reports, development project reports, consultancy studies, master student thesis) not listed in the WoS database were collected from databases hosted in research institutes (e.g. CIRAD), from research partners, form NGOs working in the selected countries that were contacted by the authors, or identified from an internet research.

## 2.3 From screened papers to relevant literature selection

From the refined WoS list of documents and grey literature, a selection grid was elaborated to retain the most relevant documents only. In order to ensure the traceability of the information, the documents were labelled by name and type of document (provenance of WoS or grey literature) and a reference number was assigned to the article. In addition, for WoS papers, the number of search equation from which they originated (equation 1, 2 or 3) was reported. This made possible to identify the duplicates among the results of the three equations.

The relevance of the documents was based on several qualitative criteria including the presence of:

* Data on food security

* Data on environmental aspects

* Economic data

* Social data

* Some information about the implementation of agroecological practices

* Elements of comparison between agroecological practices/conventional practices/traditional practices.
This criterion also contains information on the notion of agroecological knowledge among farmers.

These criteria were extracted from the summary of each document plus the materials and methods section when necessary.

The next step after this point could be option a) or b)

a) A scoring was set up to the selection grid to accept or reject documents. A score of 0, 1 or 2 was assigned to each of the 6 criteria listed above, and the sum of these scores gave a final score for each document. Empirically but consistently, when the final score was 6, the document was retained for full analysis. The selection threshold was reduced to 5 when number of selected documents was insufficient per country (less than 7).

If a document was scored 0 for one of the last two criteria, it was automatically rejected because it meant that it was not contributing to the subject or that no agroecological practice was reported. Overall, though, it had to be kept in mind that a selected article did not necessarily include relevant contributions on all criteria.

Finally, the database of selected articles resulting from this selection process was checked by specialists of partner institutions in the field. A file summing up the selected articles, according to the type of literature, was produced per country.

b) After two rounds of exclusion/inclusion based on abstract screening, included documents were summarized in the table as described in the next section. For each country, between 12-50 articles and gray literature documents were summarised. Through this process, the «best» 10-12 documents from each country could be identified. These were studies or reports that included information on food security and agroecological practices, making them relevant to KC FNS. A peer review process was used to check this selection process, with an expert external to the team of reviewers going through the initial summary table of grey and scientific literature to check that the final 10-12 documents were indeed the most relevant articles to be included in the country brief.

## 2.4 Summarizing selected documents in a table

A table per country was set up to summarize each selected document. The structure of the table was made up of 7 groups of items elaborated by the authors:

* Source of information

* Contextualisation of the situation analysed

* Products/Inputs/Costs

* Multi-criteria assessment of agroecological production and services

* Quality of information for assessment

* Perception of the pros and cons

* Recommendation/advice
The reporting of quantitative data, where available, was essential. Cells were filled out as much as possible. If no information was available for some cells, they were filled with the mention "NA" (not applicable). The items included in the table are reported in Annex 1.

**2.5 Preparation of Country Briefs**

The knowledge acquired through the literature review was synthesized per country. Each synthesis included a general description of the agroclimatic profile of the country, a synthesis of agronomic practices described in literature, links to food security, a brief presentation of the agronomic practices covered in the relevant documents, the results regarding the effectiveness of implementation of agroecology in each country as reported by scientific literature, the contributions of agroecology to food security, relevant socio-economic aspects and relative environmental benefits. Finally, some conclusions were drawn.

**2.6 General synthesis**

This section contains the summary of the findings on the contribution of agroecological practices to food security in the 17 selected countries (Figure 1), as resulting from the analysed literature, screened as described in chapter 2. Each profile contains the bibliographic references on which the profile is based.
## 3 Country briefs on agroecology

This section contains the summary of the findings on the effectiveness of agroecological practices in the seventeen selected countries (Figure 1) and four main geographic regions: West Africa, East and Southern Africa, Asia, Central America and the Caribbean, as resulting from the analysed literature, screened as described in chapter 2. Each profile contains the bibliographic references on which the profile is based.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Countries analysed in the present report<fnref n="3" />:</figcaption></figure>

### West Africa

1. Senegal

2. Mali

3. Burkina Faso

4. Niger

5. Ghana

6. Togo<fnref n="4" />

7. Benin

### East and Southern Africa

8. Ethiopia

9. Kenya

10. Tanzania

11. Malawi

12. Zimbabwe

13. Madagascar

### Asia

14. Lao PDR

### Central America and the Caribbean

15. Guatemala

16. Nicaragua

17. Cuba

<footnote n="3">³ Copyright, European Union, 2020. Map created by EC-JRC. The boundaries and names shown on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the European Union.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Togo is included as country where food security and rural development are target sectors of the European Development Fund (https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/where-we-work/togo_en)</footnote>
**3.1 Senegal**

**3.1.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective**

Located on the western edge of Africa's vast Sahel region, Senegal environment is mostly arid, with five tropical climatic zones, from shrub steppes of the Sahelian zone, through the dry steppes of the Sudano-Sahelian zone and the savanna landscapes and forests of respectively the Sudanian and Sudano-Guinean zones.

Most farmers practice small-scale rainfed subsistence agriculture. They experience harsh cropping conditions, low rainfall and are adversely affected by soil degradation, frequent dry spells and increasing population. Staple crops are rice, millet, sorghum and maize, while cash crops are mainly cotton, groundnuts, fruits and vegetables. Senegal imports a considerable amount of its food, like rice, and agriculture accounts for around 10% of national Gross Domestic Product, which is low compared to other West African countries. Despite a significant livestock population, Senegal also remains a net importer of meat and milk powder.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

**3.1.2 Topics covered by the selected literature**

Most systems encountered in this literature review are organic farming home gardening, agroforestry systems, or annual crops such as millet or groundnut (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The reported agroecological practices encompass crop mixtures and crop rotations, the use of residue mulching, compost-based organic fertilization, or biocontrol methods; no postharvest management was recorded among them. The studies focused on smallholder family farming, with some publications establishing a farm typology according to acreage and market orientation.

About half of the relevant documents deal with experimental results, while the others are mainly based on surveys and interviews of farmers in the field, sometimes in a combination with participatory approaches and experiments carried out at the farmers' plots.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.**
Agroforestry in the groundnut basin, Caroline Dangleant
© Cirad</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.:**
Vegetable crops in the Niayes region, Pierre Silvie
© Cirad</figcaption></figure>

**3.1.3 Links to food security**

The contribution of agroecological practices to improve food security was mainly evaluated indirectly through crop yields or livelihood evolution, i.e. income change. Only one paper directly assessed the impact on food security through direct survey of farmer's income. The effect on nutrition security was barely reported, besides some organic farming products.

<footnote n="5">⁵ Sources (in addition to the references below):</footnote>

<footnote>http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-1232059926563/5747581-1239131985528/5999762-1242914244952/Senegal_Report_Final_EN.pdf
https://www.ifad.org/en/web/operations/country/id/senegal</footnote>
A positive contribution of agroecology can be noticed, since all 4 articles assessing these practices (i.e., agroforestry, traditional plant associations, mulching and natural fertilization) in experimental settings found higher yields of millet and groundnuts. The highest yields were obtained in one experiment combining local trees (i.e., Piliostigma reticulata) with traditional plant associations (millet, groundnut). When including those trees, additional fertilization did not increase further the yields (Bright et al. 2017). In the remaining experiments closer to conventional agriculture without trees, combinations of natural and synthetic fertilizers yielded the best results (Badiane et al. 2001, Stoate et al. 2008, Trail et al. 2016). A second group of articles, typically compared conventional versus organic farming in observational settings. These articles consistently showed lower yields in organic farming and lower profitability as the market does not offer higher prices for these products (Binta et al. 2015, Adramiampianina et al. 2018, de Bon et al. 2019). Another article shows contrasting effects depending on the type of farm, i.e. subsistence or extensive farms will have more difficulties to improve their food security than more intensive and more market-oriented systems due to a lack of added value price. But this study did not really look clearly into agroecological practices, besides farms where livestock (ie. small ruminants) were used to increase soil fertility (Douxchamps et al 2016). One of the most important factors affecting food security seems the management of soil fertility thanks to soil conservation practices, such as the use of residue mulch from tree leaves in agroforestry, crop mixtures or intercropping and rotations studied and found usually relevant in the twelve articles.

### 3.1.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

With regard to productivity, the species Piliostigma reticulatum, Faidherbia albida and Guiera senegalensis were found particularly suitable for increasing groundnut and millet yields in intercropping/agroforestry systems compared to plots without these shrubs. For example, millet grain yield was increased by a third in intercropping, as it ranged from 1248-1606 kg/ha in the plots with shrubs and application of leaf mulch compared to 894-1236 kg/ha in the plots without shrubs (Stoate and al. 2008). Likewise, intercropping of millet with legumes significantly increased millet production by 55% for millet-cowpea intercrop compared to millet sole crop (Trail et al. 2016) (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The same applies for compost fertilizer in combination with intercropping, which led to higher crop performances compared to compost or fertilizer applied alone (Badiane et al 2001). On the other hand, studies regarding organic farming point out significant lower yields than for conventional production, even if the order of magnitude of yield gap varies according to crops tested (de Bon et al. 2019). Another type of agroecological practice has been studied, such as the use of neem leaves as biopesticide, and has been characterized as efficient to control a cabbage pest, the white fly (Plutella xylostella), leading to significantly improved yields (Sow 2013). It demonstrated that some solutions exist to substitute chemical by natural products to control some pests or diseases.

From an economic point of view, a number of agroecological practices having improved farmer's livelihoods can be emphasized. For agroforestry systems, the multiple uses of trees, such as e.g. wood for energy, fodder for breeding, medicinal use, and organic fertilization with falling leaves, can allow an external input saving for households (Bright et al. 2017). When yield is increased, it can raise income, only if the cost generated by the agroecological practice does not exceed the resulting surplus income, since no price valuation exists. Note that this cost of transition or cost benefit analysis is usually missing in most articles since they are focused solely on productivity. In organic farming, the gross margins assessed on various vegetable productions led to lower economic net returns compared to conventional production, especially due to the absence of local market and certification for organic products, which guarantees premium prices for covering reduced yields (Binta et al., 2015).

Some articles point out that the needed investment is a barrier to adopting agroecological practices, especially when economic returns occur only in the long term thanks to soil fertility increase, and that farms have significant cash issues (Douxchamps et al. 2016, Bright et al. 2017). Little data on the cost of labour are available, even if the surplus of working time in agroecology and organic farming is demonstrated (Binta et al. 2015, Ba Bah 2016), and that farms are mainly based on family labour.

Regarding environmental benefits, trees in agroforestry can provide significant ecosystem services, such as i) reducing soil erosion, ii) allow nutrients recycling, iii) increasing soil organic matter and iv) carbon sequestration, therefore v) increasing water retention, vi) enhancing soil fertility and vii) increasing biodiversity (Bright et al. 2017, Stoate et al. 2008). By increasing soil cover, intercropping and residue mulching can reduce the splash effect of raindrops resulting in higher infiltration and reduced erosion (Trail et al. 2016), while improved soil quality can also be obtained through the return of crop residues to the soil in order to maintain organic matter levels in sandy soils (Badiane et al. 2001). Moreover, neem-based pest management methods decrease
chemical pesticide use and could therefore result in a decrease in health hazards and biodiversity loss (Sow 2013). Additionally, one of the documents suggests lower carbon emissions in organic farming systems than in conventional systems (Binta et al. 2015), as a way to mitigate climate change.

No noteworthy elements were pointed out on the social level in the documents, except the social value of some tree species (Stoate et al. 2008), or the social benefits from improved income, which enables better access to ecosystem services (Douxchamps et al. 2016).

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Millet field manual weeding, Caroline Dangleant © Cirad</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Crop association: cowpea, groundnut and millet, Caroline Dangleant © Cirad</figcaption></figure>

**3.1.5 Promotion of agroecology in the Country: evidence from literature**

No government policy supporting agroecology has been mentioned in the articles analyzed. Agroecological practices seem to be mainly disseminated by local associations or NGOs, which promote and lead several development projects in agroecology in West Africa. For example, the ENDA PRONAT NGO has created a certification of healthy and sustainable agriculture, with specifications similar to organic farming, and developed its local markets, which however struggles to ensure stable prices to farmers and sell sufficient volumes (Ba Bah 2016).

Overall, the level of dissemination and adoption of agroecological practices by farmers is rarely analyzed in scientific papers. Then there is probably a significant gap between practices experimented through researchers and implementation on a larger scale with farmers.

**3.1.6 Conclusions**

Agroecology has an encouraging potential to improve food security in Senegal by increasing yields and soil fertility, if not to be substantially convincing through this analysis due to some lack in published economic studies. Some practices, such as agroforestry, crop mixtures of cereal and legume, residue mulching and compost use, are studied in Senegal and results indicated that they can improve soil properties and therefore productivity at lower costs. In studies dealing with organic farming, however, the lack of premium price valuation is really an issue, as demonstrated in market gardening where organic farming production is characterized by lower yields than in conventional practices, as well as income due to the absence of a specific market for this type of production, despite positive environmental externalities. Given the lack of exhaustiveness in the themes covered, there is a significant need both for research and development project to have a more accurate evaluation of the contribution of agroecology in this country for improving food security, livelihood, social and environmental benefits. Results from experimental studies are promising though contributing as to provide a stronger base for deciding on the adoption by farmers of agroecology.

**3.1.7 Number of analyzed documents**

For this study, and in comparison with other reviewed countries, Senegal presents a significant number of documents published, in fact the applied protocol for literature screening returned 112 publications and 65
others documents. Of these, only 8 scientific papers and 4 documents from the grey literature were found relevant for the scope of this study.

### 3.1.8 References

#### Scientific papers

Andriamampianina, L., Temple, L., de Bon, H., Malezieux, E., Makowski, D., 2018. *Multi-criteria evaluation of organic agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa using probabilistic elicitation of expert knowledge*. CAHIERS AGRICULTURES 27. https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2018030

Badiane, A., Faye, A., Yamoah, C., Dick, R., 2001. *Use of compost and mineral fertilizers for millet production by farmers in the semiarid region of Senegal*. BIOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE & HORTICULTURE 19, 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2001.9754926

Binta, A.B.A., Barbier, B., 2015. *Economic and Environmental Performances of Organic Farming System Compared to Conventional Farming System: A case study of the Horticulture sector in the Niayes region of Senegal*, in: Edwards, D and Oldroyd, G (Ed.), AGRICULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE - ADAPTING CROPS TO INCREASED UNCERTAINTY (AGRI 2015), Procedia Environmental Sciences. pp. 17–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.07.132

Bright, M.B.H., Diedhiou, I., Bayala, R., Assigbetse, K., Chapuis-Lardy, L., Ndour, Y., Dick, R.P., 2017. *Long-term Piliostigma reticulatum intercropping in the Sahel: Crop productivity, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and soil quality*. AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT 242, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.007

de Bon, H., Brun-Diallo, L., Sene, J.-M., Simon, S., Sow, M.A., 2019. *Organic vegetable cropping systems yields and practices in Senegal*. CAHIERS AGRICULTURES 28. https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2019001

Douxchamps, S., Van Wijk, M.T., Silvestri, S., Moussa, A.S., Quiros, C., Ndour, N.Y.B., Buah, S., Somé, L., Herrero, M., Kristjanson, P., Ouedraogo, M., Thornton, P.K., Van Asten, P., Zougmoré, R., Rufino, M.C., 2016. *Linking agricultural adaptation strategies, food security and vulnerability: evidence from West Africa*. Regional Environmental Change 16, 1305–1317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0838-6

Stoate, C., Jarju, A.K., 2008. *A participatory investigation into multifunctional benefits of indigenous trees in West African savanna farmland*. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 6, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2008.0299

Trail, P., Abaye, O., Thomason, W.E., Thompson, T.L., Gueye, F., Diedhiou, I., Diatta, M.B., Faye, A., 2016. *Evaluating Intercropping (Living Cover) and Mulching (Desiccated Cover) Practices for Increasing Millet Yields in Senegal*. AGRONOMY JOURNAL 108, 1742–1752. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0422

#### Grey literature

Agrisud International, 2015. *Guide des pratiques agroécologiques*, Département de Mbour, Senegal. https://rim-rural.org/guide-des-pratiques-agro-ecologiques-departement-de-mbour/

Ba Bah, A.B., 2016. *Changements climatiques et Intensification Durable au Sénégal*. https://bibnum.ucad.sn/viewer.php?c=thd&d=thd_2016_0025

Ketteka, V., 2016. *Dynamique de transition agroécologique du maraîchage dans la zone Sud des Niayes, Sénégal*. http://agritrop.cirad.fr/592403/

Sow, G., 2013. *Gestion intégrée des populations de Plutella xylostella L. (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), principal ravageur du chou au Sénégal*. http://agritrop.cirad.fr/569799/
## 3.2 Mali

### 3.2.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective

Mali is a large, land-locked country at the heart of the West African Sahel spanning the latitudinal transition from desert in the north (Saharan zone, with less than 200mm of annual rainfall), through semiarid grassland in the center (Sahelian zone), to wooded savanna in the south (Sudanian and Sudano-Guinean zones with average annual rainfall ranging from 600 to 1200 mm).

The Malian economy is largely dependent on agriculture, measured by a contribution of agriculture to national gross domestic product of more than a third. Most of the population engages in subsistence agriculture (around 75%). An agricultural area of major importance is the inland Niger delta. Millet, sorghum, and maize as well as yams and cassava are the main subsistence crops, mostly grown in northern and central regions, while cotton is an important commercial crop, primarily in Southern Mali. Rice, groundnut, sugarcane, tobacco, and tea are also grown for market. Market gardens produce a variety of vegetables and fruits, including cabbages, turnips, carrots, beans, tomatoes, bananas, mangoes, and oranges. Livestock is commercially important; the major area for livestock raising (cattle, sheep, and goats) is the Sahel.

The agricultural production is highly dependent on variable rainfall and vulnerable to frequent dry spells. There is an alternation of dry and rainy season. It is clear that cash crops (cotton and rice) have received more attention than staple rainfed food crops in terms of research and support.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.2.2 Topics covered by the selected literature

The main systems encountered in the literature are family farms, producing staple crops for self-consumption such as millet, maize, sorghum or cassava. Farms with more means can grow cash crops such as cotton and rice. There are also studies focusing on vegetable crops and a paper deals with the relationships between farmers and agro-pastoralists. Surprisingly, only few documents dealing with cash crops and horticultural production were found despite their importance in the country.

Agronomic practices studied include crop residue management, cereal-legume cropping rotations and intercropping, biological pest control through predator rearing, agroforestry, and the use of trees as fences. One of the papers addresses the conditions of land access for women, who are allocated the least fertile plots, and discusses the potential benefits of agroecological intensification on these lands with the development of perennial crops. No post-harvest agroecological practice was found.

Only one research experiment was carried out in an experimental plot, the other experiments having been set up on farm fields, as found in three articles. The other three papers result from interviews with actors in the field. Most of the studies were conducted in Central and southern Mali, within a 300 km radius from Bamako.

### 3.2.3 Links to food security

The contribution to food security was only mentioned in three documents (Payne et al 2011, Roge et al 2017, Sidibe et al 2017), and evaluated on the basis of the yields obtained or the nutritional value of products. Agroecological practices were found positive in each of these three cases, either with improved yields due to some better management of agricultural resources.

### 3.2.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

Regarding the productivity of the agroecological systems, few articles present significant results. In mixed crop-livestock systems, Dongmo and al. (2012) point out that the most productive plots are those that are richer in organic matter and mineral elements due to effective biomass recycling, using organic fertilizer produced from crop residues which are preserved from free grazing for example. Sidibé and al. (2017) showed that the intercropping of planted Ber with sorghum and eggplant did not have a negative effect on the production of these two latter crops. In addition, the on-farm biological control of the millet head miner can be effective through rearing and releasing the parasite Habrobracon hebetor, the results of which suggest millet yields increased by 40% (Payne et al., 2011).
The economic data related to agroecological practices are quite poor for Mali. In agroforestry systems, the economic value of trees is often mentioned in the documents, whether for the sale of wood, fruit, or leaves with medicinal properties, but a wide quantification is lacking. However, it has been shown that the high level of fruit production of an improved variety of Ber intercropped with eggplant and sorghum on farms under rain-fed conditions may be a source of additional income and diversification of diet for rural communities in West Africa (Sidibé and al. 2017). Moreover, Roge et al. (2017) evoke the savings in inputs and labour induced by perennial crops. Note that no document addresses the cost of investing or transitioning to agroecological practices.

Regarding environmental benefits, most authors point out the improved soil properties due to agroecological practices. For example, in the case of cereal-legume intercropping, it was suggested that cowpea creates a "live mulch" that lowers surface soil temperature and evaporation, thus improving water conservation compared with sole cropping. Thanks to extensive root systems, perennial crops can increase nutrient use efficiency and can store carbon according to Roge and al. (2017). The soil improving properties and low water requirement of some trees have also been reported as a benefit in agroforestry systems (Sidibe and al. 2017, programme Mali-UAVES 2014). Moreover, the application of biocontrol methods to manage pests allows avoiding to use pesticides, which can pose risks to human health and the environment and were reported as efficient (Payne and al. 2011).

On the social level, the development of perennial crops could benefit women farmers and pastoralists who are often marginalized by the development of cash crops. They may result in a better access to land and resources for these two groups (Roge and al. 2017). The model of crop residues management proposed by Dongmo et al. (2012), which aims at improving biomass recycling and crop livestock integration compared to traditional use of crop residues by herders and farmers, can be a relevant solution to solve conflicts and tensions between crop farmers and pastoralists in the Sudano-Sahelian region. Finally, live fences with trees have been identified as effective by farmers to protect livestock access to land and to mark properties. Some trees have a cultural value and the owners are not the only ones to reap the reward from having trees since members of the village can benefit from the products of the live fence (Levasseur and al 2004).

### 3.2.5 Promotion of agroecology in the Country: evidences from literature

The lack of support from the government to develop agroecological innovations can be pointed out. For example, Roge et al. (2012) indicate that, on the contrary, policies subsidise the purchase of synthetic fertilizers and aim to develop cash crops (cotton, rice). Agroecology is supported by some associations and NGOs, such as Agroecology and Solidarity with the Sahelian People, UAVES (Union for a Future Ecological and Solidarity) which have implemented several agricultural development projects, but few reports and quantitative results are available. Cooperation between farmers at the community level appears to be fundamental for the diffusion of new practices.

### 3.2.6 Conclusions

According to the documents found and studied, it is mentioned that some agroecological practices, in particular agroforestry, present considerable potential at the economic, environmental and food security levels. However, there is a lack of significant scientific data regarding agroecology for this country, as well as results from development projects. Obviously, there are projects that are being set up according to NGOs, and the agroecological transition is "gaining ground", but the results of these projects are missing in the grey literature. There is therefore a need to capitalize all available information to have a more precise idea of the potential and state of development of agroecology in Mali.

### 3.2.7 Number of analyzed documents

Mali is characterized by modest reporting of relevant scientific knowledge on agroecology, since of the 98 papers initially identified through the applied protocol, only 6 documents were retained. The grey literature is very modest as well, with only 14 documents initially identified, and almost no appropriate document apt to be evaluated, except one.
### 3.2.8 References

#### Scientific papers

Dongmo, A.-L., Vall, E., Dugue, P., Njoya, A., Lossouarn, J., 2012. *Designing a Process of Co-Management of Crop Residues for Forage and Soil Conservation in Sudano-Sahel*. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 36, 106-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2011.620232

Falconnier, G.N., Descheemaeker, K., Van Mourik, T.A., Giller, K.E., 2016. *Unravelling the causes of variability in crop yields and treatment responses for better tailoring of options for sustainable intensification in southern Mali*. FIELD CROPS RESEARCH 187, 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.12.015

Levasseur, V., Djimde, M., Olivier, A., 2004. Live fences in Segou, Mali: an evaluation by their early users. AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS 60, 131-136. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGF0.0000013268.44627.2f

Payne, W., Tapsoba, H., Baoua, I.B., Malick, B.N., N'Diaye, M., Dabire-Binso, C., 2011. On-farm biological control of the pearl millet head miner: realization of 35 years of unsteady progress in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 9, 186-193. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0560

Roge, P., Diarisso, T., Diallo, F., Boire, Y., Goita, D., Peter, B., Macalou, M., Weltzien, E., Snapp, S., 2017. Perennial grain crops in the West Soudanian Savanna of Mali: perspectives from agroecology and gendered spaces. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 15, 555-574. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1372850

Sidibe, D., Sanou, H., Bayala, J., Teklehaimanot, Z., 2017. Yield and biomass production by African eggplant (Solanum aethiopicum) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) intercropped with planted Ber (Ziziphus mauritiana) in Mali (West Africa). AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS 91, 1031-1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9978-z

#### Grey literature

Agroécologie et Solidarité avec les peuples du Sahel, 2014, Programme Mali-UAVES, http://agrosol-sahel.org/nos-actions/nos-programmes/mali/
## 3.3 Burkina Faso

### 3.3.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective<fnref n="6" />

Burkina Faso is a Sahelian country that faces low and variable rainfalls, land degradation, deforestation and desertification. Despite the harsh climate, Burkina Faso's agriculture sector generates roughly a third of the country's GDP and involves 80 percent of the population. Agriculture production is generally characterized by low crop and livestock productivity and is dominated by subsistence farming. According to US Aid, more than 3.5 million people, roughly 20 percent of the population, are food insecure.

The country has a semi-arid tropical climate. The dry season, from October to March, is characterized by the harsh harmattan wind, while the rainy season, from May or June to September, is marked by humid winds. From South to North, three agro-climatic zones can be identified: the south Sudanese zone, with an average annual rainfall between 900 and 1200 mm; the Sudano-sahelian region in the central zone of the country, which has an average annual rainfall of between 800 and 900 mm; and the Sahelian zone in northern Burkina Faso, with an average annual rainfall between 300 and 600 mm over only three months. In the latter zone, the vegetation consists of steppes with trees, shrubs and thick bushes while denser forest formations may be found in the other two zones. The northern zone is characterised by the most degraded soils of the country and frequent dry spells that may result into subsequent yield declines and food shortages in this region.

The main crops grown are millet, sorghum, maize, and cotton. The latter, which is primarily grown in western and eastern regions of Burkina Faso, is the most important in terms of economic value and accounted for 60% of the country's export before the gold mining boom.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.3.2 Main topics addressed by the selected literature

Most of systems encountered in the literature review are family farming systems characterised by a low level of inputs use, except for cotton planters' farms, the major cash crop in this country. Staple crops grown encompass sorghum, millet, maize, groundnut or maize (Figure 5 and Figure 6). There are also studies focusing on vegetable cropping systems and on mixed farming and breeding systems. Moreover, agroecological practices studied refer to crop-livestock integration, the use of organic manure, conservation agriculture, the use of neem-based biopesticides, agroforestry, and Zai holes. No paper on postharvest agroecological practice for reducing product losses or wastes has been identified. It should be noted that only two documents deal with cotton production, which indicates that, for the moment, more agroecological activities have been developed on staple crops than on cash crops in this country.

Three studies are based on farmers interviews, the remaining refer equally to on-farm experiments and station experimental sites. Likewise, research activities took place in several regions across the territory, with 4 studies in Northern Burkina Faso (BF) and Central plateau, 3 studies in Western BF, and 2 studies in Eastern and Southern BF.

<footnote n="6">⁶ Sources (in addition to the references below):
https://agriculture.gouv.fr/burkina-faso
https://www.usaid.gov/burkina-faso/agriculture-and-food-security
http://www.fao.org/3/i3760e/i3760e.pdf</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Half-moons to restore soil fertility, Patrick Dugué © Cirad</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Stocking cereal straw (sorghum and millet) for livestock, Patrick Dugué © Cirad</figcaption></figure>

### 3.3.3 Links to food security

Several documents highlight a positive contribution of agroecological practices to food security. It was mainly evaluated by assessing food availability or livelihood evolution. For example, the application of compost appears as a sound technology for alleviating food shortage and poverty, as it results in a significant increase in crop production and mitigated the negative effect of a delay in sowing, although there are some socio-economic constraints to its adoption (Ouedraogo and al. 2001). Similarly, Vall et al. (2017) showed that food security is higher in mixed crop-breeding systems than in farms with a low level of crop-livestock integration, with more than 200 kg of cereals per year per capita because of a better use of cattle manures. According to Bambara and al. (2008), sorghum and cowpea intercropping with improved varieties may resolve issues of food insecurity by increasing total grain production and decreasing food shortage when compared to the inefficient traditional practices of intercropping. In the grey literature, the increase in crop production and food security allowed by Zaï holes technic (small planting holes where water and manure are concentrated) is largely reported, especially in most degraded lands (Ouedraogo and al. 2005, Billaz 2012). Moreover, the potential of overall agroecological practices to increase food security by increasing yields and resiliency is suggested by the CALAO report (2018), although this document lacks quantitative data.

### 3.3.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

The potential impact on productivity of some agroecological cropping systems are well illustrated through these publications. For instance, the application of compost (5t/ha) increased sorghum grain yields by 45% in southern Burkina Faso compared to no-compost plots (Ouedraogo and al. 2001). Likewise, the use of compost in combination with mineral fertilizers resulted in higher cotton yields compared to the application of fertilizers alone in Central and Western Burkina Faso, but differences were not significant (Pouya and al. 2013). In northern Burkina Faso, Bambara and al. (2008) showed that improved varieties and rational relative densities of intercropping led to an increase of grain yield of 34% for sorghum and 26% for cowpea compared to the traditional system of intercropping. Similarly, in the grey literature, Sermé (2007) reported that sorghum-cowpea rotation resulted in sorghum grain and biomass yield increases of 31 and 40 % respectively when compared to pure sorghum crop rotation, while Zida (2011) highlighted similar benefits. Billaz (2012) references other studies suggesting substantial sorghum yield increases (from 70 kg/ha to 300 kg/ha) with Zaï holes compared to cropping systems without Zaï. In addition, with better recycling, crop livestock-integration practices can improve crop productivity. For example, Vall et al. (2017) showed that maize yield was higher (+36%) in farms with high level of integration between crop and livestock than in farms with lower levels of integration. Finally, several conservation agricultural practices combining trees can improve staple crops yields on unfertile soils (Bayala and al. 2011). Coppicing trees and rotations appeared to be better adapted for zones with an annual rainfall of over 800 mm, while residue mulching seemed to improve crops yields when the rainfall is less than 600 mm (Bayala and al. 2011).

From an economic point of view, gross margins or incomes appear to be considerably higher in farms with high level of crop-livestock integration in comparison to farms with low level of association (CALAO report 2018). For example, Vall and al. (2017) suggested gross margins 57% higher for maize in this type of farming system. Moreover, Zaï holes technique can improve farmers' production and benefits. Indeed, the cereal surplus can be sold or used to feed poultry and small ruminants, covering economic investment with sufficient margin (Billaz, 2012). The production of good quality local seeds can enable farmers to achieve a satisfactory level of production while saving the purchase of seeds and other inputs. Consequently, the decrease of these expenses
improves farm profitability and income (Comité Français pour la Solidarité Internationale). In addition, Millogo (2007) pointed out higher economic gains in certified organic cotton production than in conventional one despite lower yields, because of higher price for the product and lower production costs.

In many documents, the cost of agroecological transition is outlined as a limit to its potential development. Indeed, some farmers cannot afford equipment such as pickaxes, wheelbarrows and carts, which are of tremendous importance in compost production and crop livestock integration (Ouedraogo and al. 2001, Millogo and al., Vall and al. 2017, CALAO report 2018 etc.). Thus, these innovations could be only adopted by producers owning animal power and sufficient labour.

In terms of environmental benefits, many documents emphasize the improvement of soil fertility or water conservation brought about by agroecological practices (Figure 7 and Figure 8). For instance, soil structure and cation-exchange capacity was improved by applying compost (Ouedraogo and al 2001), or through the use of cowpea as a cover crop (Sermé, 2007). Likewise, crop-livestock integration contributes positively to soil fertility and carbon sequestration by retaining the largest amount of carbon on the farm (Vall and al., 2017). Moreover, according to Billaz (2012), Zai' holes regenerate soil fertility and increase water infiltration, while stones retaining barriers are efficient to stop water runoff. These benefits are of paramount importance as water runoff is the most impacting factor on the water balance during dry spells in the region. Soil conservation practices can also enhance the abundance of macrofauna (Ouedraogo, 2009) or increase soil carbon content (CALAO report 2018). Assisted natural regeneration (ANR) also contributes to soil rehabilitation (Billaz, 2012).

Some social benefits are pointed out in the documents, in addition to the improvements of food security or farmer livelihoods mentioned above. The development of Zai' holes technique tends to decrease rural exodus and strengthen the fight against poverty (Billaz 2012). Zai' holes or organic cotton production can also improve women's status as well as the one of young farmers because they acquire better autonomy than in conventional production (Millogo, 2007). According to the CALAO report, agroecological practices lead to a recovery of local know-how. Moreover, in a context of limited access to inputs, crop-livestock integration reinforces autonomy and sufficiency of farms. However, it is combined with the development of commercial exchanges between farms (e.g. manure, fodder, carts) and could enhance some conflicts between communities to have access to these resources. (Vall and al. 2017). Finally, according to farmers, cotton organic production can reduce health hazards (Millogo, 2007).

It should be outlined that some results from the grey literature must be analyzed carefully as they do not rely on scientific or accurate observations, and there is no evident comparison with conventional practices. These results should therefore be used cautiously.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Sorghum-cowpea association, Jacques Chanterean, © Cirad</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** Sorghum in zai holes, © X. N. Gnoumou, from https://www.researchgate.net/figure/eSorgho-dans-les-poquets-de-zai-eau-Cliche-X-N-Gnoumou-2013-23-COLLECTE-DES-DONNEES_fig1_315615098</figcaption></figure>

### 3.3.5 Promotion of agroecology in the Country: evidences from literature

Agroecology is promoted by local or regional union of producers, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) such as Fert, Accir, Gret and sometimes in collaboration with ministries or research institutions, by implementing on farm plots to diffuse innovations to producers and train them (Morin-Kasprzyk and al 2015). However, several documents mention the lack of policies supporting the development of agroecology practices (CALAO report 2018, Bambara 2008, Ouedraogo 2005, etc). Levard and Mathieu (2018) point out that adoption of agroecological practices is higher in Senegal than in Burkina Faso especially because there are more NGOs
promoting their diffusion. According to the CALAO report (2018), conservation practices do not exceed 25% of farmers in Burkina Faso despite the training of many of them.

Moreover, many constraints are to be overcome to upscale the diffusion of agroecological innovations. The main limiting factors are available labour and its remuneration, equipment requirements, and organic manure availability (Vall 2017, Ouedraogo 2001). For example, Zaï without mechanization requires approximatively 300 hours of work per ha (Billaz 2012). The lack of cash flow to invest in practices that pay off in the long run is also a barrier, as well as some land access issues (CALAO report 2018). The different organizations promoting agroecology must cooperate with other private actors and policy makers to overcome the above constraints.

### 3.3.6 Conclusions

This brief report highlights some positive contributions of agroecology especially in terms of food security and environmental impacts. Some practices even seem critical to restore soil fertility and productivity in most degraded lands. However, in view of the lack of scientific papers, agroecology research activity should be intensified in Burkina Faso, these results need to be confirmed by additional studies.

### 3.3.7 Number of analyzed documents

A small number of relevant scientific papers was found for Burkina Faso, as from 152 papers returned by the application of the protocol for literature review used in this study, only 5 were considered relevant for the goal of this study. However, three papers referring to studies in Burkina Faso among other ones (Senegal, Mali) were analysed. In contrast, a considerable amount of grey literature was found to be relevant, as 10 documents were selected among 90 initially identified.

### 3.3.8 References

#### Scientific papers

Bambara, D., Zoundi, J.S., Tiendrebeogo, J.-P., 2008. *Sorghum Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench and cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp intercropping for crop-livestock integration in the Sudano-Sahelian area*. Cahiers Agricultures 17, 297-301.

Bénagabou, O.I., Blanchard, M., Bougouma Yaméogo, V.M.C., Vayssières, J., Vigne, M., Vall, E., Lecomte, P., Nacro, H.B., 2017. *L'intégration agriculture-élevage améliore-t-elle l'efficience, le recyclage et l'autonomie énergétique brute des exploitations familiales mixtes au Burkina Faso? Rev. Elev. Med. Vet. Pays Trop.*, 70, 31. https://doi.org/10.19182/remvt.31479

Ouedraogo, E., Mando, A., Zombre, N., 2001. *Use of compost to improve soil properties and crop productivity under low input agricultural system in West Africa*. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 84, 259-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00246-2

Pouya, M.B., Bonzi, M., Gnankambary, Z., Traore, K., Ouedraogo, J.S., Some, A.N., Sedogo, M.P., 2013. Current soil fertility management practices and their effects on the cotton production and soil on the cotton farms of Central and Western Burkina Faso. Cahiers Agricultures 22, 282-292. https://doi.org/10.1684/agr.2013.0643

Vall, E., Marre-Cast, L., Kamgang, H.J., 2017. Intensification pathways and sustainability of crop-livestock systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: crop-livestock interaction contribution. Cahiers Agricultures 26. https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2017011

#### Grey literature

Bayala, J., World Agroforestry Centre (Eds.), 2011. *Conservation agriculture with trees in the West African Sahel: a review*, ICRAF occasional paper. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi.

Billaz, R., 2012. *La lutte contre les aléas climatiques au Burkina Faso Acquis et défis de l'agro-écologie: le cas de la région Nord*. https://www.avsf.org/public/posts/914/la-lutte-contre-les-aleas-climatiques-au-burkina-faso-acquis-et-defis-de-l-agroecologie-dans-la-region-nord.pdf

Comité Français pour la Solidarité Internationale, n.d. Ferme Agroécologique et Autonomie Semencière Paysanne. FICHE CAPI PAFAO #87. https://www.alimenterre.org/system/files/ressources/pdf/1115-entretien-jafowa-aidmr-bacye-sam-tokoro-cdr.pdf
Levard, L., Mathieu, B., 2018. CALAO report, agroécologie: capitalisation d'expériences en Afrique de l'Ouest, Projet CALAO. https://www.gret.org/wp-content/uploads/rapport_etude_calao_2018-web_avsf_gret_cedeao.pdf

Millogo, J., 2007. Perception paysanne du coton biologique: cas de la zone de Fada.

Morin-Kasprzyk, M., Sankara, R., Garnotel, J.-L., 2015. Quel accompagnement des producteurs sur la voie de l'agroecologie. Fert, ACCIR. UDPN Diablo. https://www.alimenterre.org/system/files/ressources/pdf/954-fert-accir-udpn-capitalisation-agro-ecologie-burkina-2015.pdf

Ouédraogo, A., Sawadogo, H., 2005. Innovation locale au Burkina Faso dans la vulgarisation agriculteur-à-agriculteur.

Ouédraogo, J., 2009. Evaluation de la contribution de la macrofaune du sol sur la performance des mesures de conservation des eaux et des sols.

Sermé, I., 2007. Agriculture de conservation dans les systèmes de culture à Base de sorgho dans les zones centre et sud-ouest du Burkina Faso.

Zida, Z., 2011. Long-term effects of conservation soil management in Saria, Burkina Faso, West Africa. s.n., S.l. https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/180894
## 3.4 Niger

### 3.4.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective<fnref n="7" />

Niger is a country located in the Sahel region of West Africa. It is land-locked, and the majority of its area is located in the Sahara Desert, with the southernmost part of the country being savannah, therefore it is covered by Saharan, Sahelian and Sudanian agroecological zones. It has a population of more than 19 million people and it is growing at an estimated 3.2% per year, one of the highest rates in the world.

Its agricultural sector is characterised by livestock herding and smallholder field cropping. Its major staple crops are millet, sorghum, cowpea, groundnut, cassava and rice. Agricultural productivity is generally low due to persistent drought conditions, soil infertility, and desertification. Food security is affected by these factors, as well as regional epidemics and conflicts.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.4.2 Synthesis of agronomic practices

Agri-food systems covered in the analysis included subsistence and entrepreneurial field cropping (extensive and low-level intensive), market gardening systems, agroforestry, home gardening, and mixed cropping systems. Practices demonstrated were farmer managed natural regeneration (FMNR), micro-dosing of fertiliser, biological pest control, intercropping, market-based diversification, demi-lunes and tassa (planting pits), organic fertilisation and natural seed treatments. No post-harvest practices were described in the literature. Factors influencing farmers and other stakeholders to adopt various agroecological practices included pests, low incomes, soil infertility, erosion, diminishing yields, chronic food insecurity, high input prices, low seed survival rates, increasingly erratic rainfall, and limited access to land.

### 3.4.3 Links to food security

The analysed literature detailed exclusively indirect contributions to food security through increases of generated income, increased access to land or production gains (yield)/increase of food availability. Of the eight total sources, four presented positive correlations between the activities presented and project participant food security. All sources addressed food security at the household or village scale.

### 3.4.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

From the selected literature, yield increases were the only described indicator of productivity improvements through agroecological practices. In a study highlighting the use of biological controls against pearl millet head miner, farmers observed increases in yield of up to 40% (Payne et al, 2001). In a large-scale study on the use of farmer managed natural regeneration (FMNR), some farmers observed a doubling of their yield (WRI et al, 2008). A project investigating micro-dosing of fertiliser (precision application of 40-60 kg NPK/ha) saw average yields increase 44%, with some increases as high as 89% (Tabo et al., 2011). In a smaller study where farmers applied manure to fields in tandem with integration of agroforestry systems, yield increases of 48-240% were observed (AFSA, 2015).

Increase in income was the most highlighted economic benefit within the studies. The use of FMNR resulted in farmers and farmer families having their incomes doubled or tripled as a result of sales of fuelwood, forage and leaves for human consumption (WRI et al., 2008). A study combining the use of micro-dosing and of a "warrantage" system (a community-based credit system where farmers sell their harvest to a community organisation for immediate income, then the harvest is stored and sold when market prices increase, and the extra income is shared with farmers and fed back into the organisation) showed incomes increasing 44-121% during the study (Tabo et al., 2011). Farmers who planted Moringa oleifera for human consumption recorded higher opportunity costs than those cultivating staple crops in a small study (Larwanou et al., 2003). A study of an initiative to improve women's access to land saw the participating women increase their household incomes through increased market sales (Mamadou & Salaou, 2013). Peri-urban gardeners around Niamey observed

<footnote n="7">⁷ Sources (in addition to those listed below):
Image by Marcos Elias de Oliveira Júnior - Own work, Public Domain
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ng.html
https://www.wfp.org/countries/niger</footnote>
higher gross margins in their operations by serving niche markets and producing vegetables during seasons of low availability (Andres and Philippe, 2011).

In addition to increase in income, there were three other economic benefits observed in the literature. As a result of the increased efficiency of the micro-dosing regimen, farmers' expenditure for inputs were reduced (Tabo et al, 2011). Rehabilitation of degraded lands and improved water conservation practices through the practice of FMNR saw land values increased for farmers (WRI et al, 2008). In a study of a farmers federation, members created a market for improved millet seed, which saw seed vendors rise from 8 to 200 in one year (UNDP, 2015).

There were limited environmental benefits observed in the literature. Biodiversity was enhanced in two studies. In the case of using biological control of the pearl millet head miner, chemical pesticide use was either reduced or eliminated. This led to an increase in beneficial insect populations (Payne et al, 2011). In another study (WRI et al, 2008), where FMNR was practiced, a return of local fauna was observed. In addition to this biodiversity enhancement, farmers and landowners observed increased soil fertility, reduced erosion and improved groundwater stores through practicing FMNR. During this study, which covered 5 million ha, tree cover increase by 10-20 times. In one study, where communities established tree nurseries to support agroforestry efforts, discarded plastic bags were gathered and used (AFSA, 2015).

The literature demonstrated a wide array of realised social benefits, which are categorised as empowerment of farmers or community, policy and social changes. Farmer field schools (FFS) and farmer to farmer knowledge exchange was seen in a study where an NGO was promoting the use of agroforestry practices. Through these trainings and exchanges, farmers established or improved their social network for technical support and knowledge sharing (AFSA, 2015). In the study of the application of biological controls, the project resulted in the training of farmers, extension agents, and village-based animators (Payne et al., 2011). In the study of the farmers' federation, trainings targeted specifically for women and promoted financial independence (UNDP, 2015). One project which was studied resulted in the mobilisation of women groups to create and maintain tree nurseries, which were either used themselves or sold to the villages (AFSA, 2015). A project which focused on providing women with better access to land, employment and market opportunities were improved for participants (Mamadou & Salou, 2013). The "warrantage" system, where farmers were able to store harvest and sell at more opportunistic times of the year, also yielded increased self-reliance on the village scale and stimulated farmer-based organisations and cooperative organisations in the area (Tabo et al., 2011). In the case of moringa production, employment opportunities increased for villagers during harvest times, as a result of moringa higher opportunity cost (Larwanou et al., 2003).

As a result of the practice of FMNR, there was an observed increase in the availability of productive lands which led to a decreasing trend of rural exodus (WRI et al, 2008). Through the support of the farmer federation, some funds which were generated were fed back in to the community to support public health facilities and schools. In addition to this community level benefit, the actions of the farmers' federation resulted in improved support from national and regional governments for farmer organisations (UNDP, 2015).

**3.4.5 Promotion of agroecology in the country: evidence from the literature**

The literature did not mention specific policies promoting agroecology; however, the Nigerien government was highly supportive in the scaling-out of FMNR practices (WRI et al, 2008). Farmers organisations were key in the promotion of village and regional scale initiatives centred around agroecological practices (UNDP, 2015). Most support for agroecology described in the literature was provided by international development agencies or national academic centres. For some studies, it was local village committees who promoted such practices.

**3.4.6 Conclusions**

Overall, few examples were reported of observed benefits deriving from agroecological practices. Economic indicators were generally measured as income gains at the household level, although input cost reductions and increased land prices were also observed. The environmental benefits that were observed generally dealt with the protection, conservation and management of soil, as well as the promotion of natural biodiversity within agricultural systems. Social benefits included the empowerment of women with access to land and more broadly the empowerment of villages.

Agroecological practices, as represented in the summary above, have a mostly scattered presence in the Nigerian agriculture. The harsh conditions in the country provide little opportunity to farmers for experimentation, although certain agroecological practices could hold the potential to make the agricultural sector more resilient in the face of a changing and unpredictable climate. Therefore, more presence of the
national government and NGOs in supporting farmers to research the implementation and dissemination of such practices could prove invaluable to the country. Additionally, most research efforts focus on productivity and/or economic benefits of certain practices. Results fail to quantify the actual effects that these benefits have on food security.

### 3.4.7 Number of analysed documents

The protocol for literature review applied in this study returned 106 scientific papers, and no grey literature documents. Of these, three were considered matching the needs of the study. In addition, grey literature was further searched to highlight research, projects or initiatives in the area which were not represented in journal articles. Five documents were retained. Overall, of the total amount of articles found, very few represented agroecological practices or transitions in the “real” world.

### 3.4.8 References

#### Scientific Literature

Andres, L., Philippe, L. 2011. Peri-urban Agriculture: The Case of Market Gardening in Niamey, Niger. African Review of Economics and Finance, 3(1), 69–81.

Payne, W., Tapsoba, H., Baoua, I.B., Malick, B.N., N'Diaye, M., Dabire-Binso, C. 2011. On-farm biological control of the pearl millet head miner: realization of 35 years of unsteady progress in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1), 186–193.

Tabo, R. Bationo, A., Amadou, B., Marchal, D., Lompo, F., Gandah, M., Hassane, O., Diallo, M.K., Ndjeunga, J., Fatondji, D., Gerard, B., Sogodogo, D., Taonda, J.B.S., Sako, K., Boubacar, S., Abdou, A., Koala, S. 2011. Fertilizer Microdosing and “Warrantage” or Inventory Credit System to Improve Food Security and Farmers’ Income in West Africa. In: Bationo A., Waswa B., Okeyo J., Maina F., Kihara J. (eds), Innovations as Key to the Green Revolution in Africa. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 113–121.

#### Grey Literature

Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), 2015. Strengthening the productive potential of farmers. Case Studies - Agroecology. [online] Available at: https://afsAfrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/strengthening-the-productive-potential-of-farmers-.pdf [Accessed 4 Nov. 2019].

Larwanou, M., Abase, A.T., Niang, A., Djibo, A. 2003. Systèmes de production du Moringa oleifera le long du fleuve Niger : Quelles perspectives pour leur amélioration? In: Sustainable Agriculture Systems for the Drylands. Proceedings of the International Symposium for Sustainable Dryland Agriculture Systems. 2-5 December 2003. Niamey, Niger. ICRISAT. pp. 162-263.

Mamadou, A., Salaou, A., 2013. Women's land rights in a changing climate: a case study from Maradi, Niger. In A New Dialogue: Putting People at the Heart of Global Development. Dublin.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2015. Gaskiya Federation of Maradi Farmers Unions, Niger. Equator Initiative Case Study Series. New York, NY.

World Resources Institute (WRI) et al., 2008. Roots of Resilience—Growing the Wealth of the Poor. World Resources 2008. Available at: https://www.wri.org/publication/world-resources-2008 [Accessed November 23, 2019].
## 3.5 Ghana

### 3.5.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective<fnref n="8" />

Ghana is a country in West Africa situated along the Gulf of Guinea and the Atlantic Ocean with a population of approximately 30 million. The region is characterized by grasslands mixed with coastal shrublands and forests. The climate is distinguished by a wet and dry season. About 65% of Ghana's total land area is agricultural land, of which 30% is arable (47000 km²). Overall there are 11,000 irrigated hectares. Small and medium size farms make up 95% of cultivated land, with most farms less than 1.2 hectares. Agriculture in Ghana is mostly traditional, smallholder and rainfed. More than half of the labour force is in agriculture and women are the majority of workers. The agricultural sector contributes to 54% of Ghana's GDP, and accounts for over 40% of export earnings, while at the same time providing over 90% of the food needs of the country. Ghana also produces high-quality cocoa and is the 2nd largest producer of cocoa in the world.

Each agroecological zone within Ghana is characterised by a unique farming system. Tree crops are vital in the forest zones (coffee, cocoa, rubber and oil palm) and are usually intercropped with maize, plantain, cocoyam and cassava (MOFA 2001). In the middle belt, mixed or single cropping of maize, legumes, cocoyam or yam are commonly grown with cash crops like tobacco and cotton. However, in the northern regions, where sorghum, maize, millet, cowpea, groundnut and yam are the main food crops, cotton and tobacco are also grown. Rice cultivation is also essential in all zones. Moreover, livestock farming is second to arable crop production (e.g. most rural households' rear livestock). Cattle production dominates the Savannah zones whereas poultry is more common in the south. However, sheep and goat production is a common practise all over the entire country.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.5.2 Synthesis of agronomic practices

In the analysed literature most farms were smallholdings, with farmers usually practising subsistence farming. Crops cultivated on these farms included food crops (maize, sweet potato, cowpea, groundnuts, cocoyam), cash crops (cocoa and cocoyam) and vegetables. Cocoa plantation systems were also studied in one article and this production was done on small-scale, family farming. All projects and studies included in were performed on-farm. Most practices in these production systems were either traditional (shifting cultivation, bush fallow system, use of inorganic fertilizers) or adapted with some agroecological practices (crop rotation with legumes, using organic fertilizers, intercropping) and what was mentioned as climate-smart practices (intercropping, minimal tillage, residue management, manure application, contour ploughing, crop rotation, manure management and rainwater harvesting).

### 3.5.3 Links to food security

Four cases recorded positive outcomes to household food security with the agroecological practices they used. The studies used indirect and direct measurements of food security to assess the impact of agroecological practices, noting positive impacts of agroecology through improved yields, food availability, increased incomes and improved wellbeing. Organic cocoa farmers had a greater diversity of tree, shrub, and herb diversity on their plots, giving them greater access to these resources for consumption and medicinal purposes compared to conventional farmers (Bandanaa et al. 2016). In another study, farmers implementing intercropping, minimum tillage, residue management, manure application, contour ploughing, crop rotation, and manure management, for the production of vegetables, maize, millet, and sorghum had no noticeable improvement in food security or well-being associated with using these agroecological practices (Alare et al. 2018).

### 3.5.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

From the point of view of productivity, the practices used had a positive effect with the exception of two case studies (Alare et al. 2018; Boakye-Achampong et al. 2017), which documented no change or a slight reduction in crop yield. The use of new crop varieties, intercropping of maize, cassava, cowpeas, and vegetables, crop rotation, and extensification of agricultural production through introduction of rice farming within the crop's

<footnote n="8">⁸ FAOSTAT, 2019</footnote>
“agroecological niche” (eg. along rivers and swamps), farmers were able to reduce risk of crop failure and increase the diversity and duration of food availability (Ayivor et al. 2016). When rotated with maize, groundnut yields doubled for 75% of farmers and increased maize yields as well, although intercropping of maize and groundnuts reduced groundnut yields. For this reason, farmers preferred a monoculture rotation of maize and groundnuts (Clottey et al. 2006). Farmers trained in minimum-tillage, compost and manure application, crop residue incorporation and crop diversification with the orange-fleshed sweet potato reported that their sweet potato yield was double that before adoption (Venhoeven 2014).

The economic impact of practices was reported in four documents. For the cocoa farms study, organic farmers, whose use manure and no chemical additives was associated with higher flora diversity on the cocoa plot compared to conventional farmers. Agro-diversity practices allowed farmers to stabilize and improve income despite adverse climatic, market, and political conditions; for example, mixed-cropping of grain, legume, and vegetables provided food for consumption and cowpea that could be sold for income (Ayivor et al. 2016). Farms who engaged in both crop and livestock production benefited from increased income through livestock sales (Alare et al. 2018). Farmers benefited from the flora diversity through the sale of herbs, shrubs, and tree products found on the cocoa farm and recorded 25% higher income from flora sale than conventional farmers (Bandanaa et al. 2016). Farmers who had adopted a new variety of sweet potatoes reported that the associated increase in crop yields led to surplus harvest that they could sell, increasing their income (Venhoeven 2014). However, in one study intercropping of cocoyam with plantain, cassava and cocoa was less profitable than monocropping cocoyam, although the researchers recommended that a diversity of food crops continue to be cultivated because of the related food security benefits of this diversity (Boakye-Achampong et al. 2017).

With respect to environmental benefits, agroecological practices improved agrobiodiversity and landscape diversity, reduced synthetic input application, and improved soil management. Farmers applied local indigenous knowledge of their biophysical environment to select cropping systems more adapted to agroecological niches, and thus more efficiently using water and nutrient availability for crop production (Ayivor et al. 2016). Organic cocoa production was associated to greater biodiversity conservation, with a higher species abundance of flora than conventional farms (Bandanaa et al. 2016). In one project, farmers were trained in Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) techniques (reduced tillage, zero tillage, crop residue incorporation, use of compost and manure) in an effort to reduce soil erosion and increase soil fertility (Venhoeven 2014). Farmers learned about alternatives to pesticide use, using instead locally available materials such as animal manure to prepare bio-pesticides and thus reducing the application of synthetic pesticides (Mwinsigten et al. 2013); farmers were able to use compost as fertilizer application without experiencing yield loss. In the same study, farmers reported that the application of compost increased soil moisture and reduced weed abundance in maize-legume intercropped fields compared to fields where they had not applied compost (Clottey et al. 2006).

Three cases noted an impact of the agroecological practices used on the social benefits, while one article reported that while dry season farming increased household well-being, the implementation of agroecological practices did not overcome the main constraint to dry season farming, which was access to a water reservoir (Alare et al. 2018). In a project that encouraged biopesticides as a substitute for pesticide, women's groups participated in food fairs to display alternatives to conventionally-produced and processed vegetables and foods and reported a visible increase in the availability of traditional food and crops at markets (Mwinsigten et al. 2013). Cultivation of orange-fleshed sweet potato using LEISA was accompanied by training in financial resource mobilisation in order to establish a culture of saving and to develop competence in setting up, expanding and diversifying commercial enterprises (Venhoeven 2014). Farmer field schools proved effective for building on indigenous knowledge to adapt and disseminate practices of intercropping and compost-making (Clottey et al. 2006).

### 3.5.5 Promotion of agroecology in the country: evidence from the literature

No policies supporting agroecology in Ghana are reported in the literature studied. All but one study had no policies in place to support their practices and this exception was recorded in the smallholder, extensive production of rice in irrigated lowlands cultivation and rain fed lowlands cultivation. In most of the cases, the promotion of agroecology has been done by local and traditional authorities and some extension officers. In some instances, national organizations like the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) and other public institutions have been involved. Nevertheless, some NGOs and private organizations have promoted agroecology. In the orange-fleshed sweet potato research, agroecology was promoted by the TRAX Program Support and Self Help Africa, United Kingdom (Venhoeven 2014). This promotion was done by teaching farmers about compost pits; including how to construct these pits, how to improve animal pens for effective dropping collection, and providing financial assistance to farmers during the training programme.
### 3.5.6 Conclusion

In Ghana, due to the development of agroecology, several traditional practices are being replaced or enhanced by agroecological practices regardless of the type of farm system; family farms, commercial farms, and extensive/intensive production. Practices like intercropping, lowland rice cultivation, LEISA, organic production contributed to increased yields, food availability, enhanced income diversification, and improved environmental health. This reflects a positive impact of agroecological practices on household food security. However, several cases reported that agroecological practices were insufficient in themselves to increase productivity of a single crop, or to cope with dry spells, and that policies that support farmers' access to rainwater harvesting, protect farmers' land rights, and disseminate appropriate technology are necessary for agroecological practices to effectively address food insecurity.

### 3.5.7 Number of analysed documents

The protocol for literature review applied in this study returned a total of 200 scientific papers and 8 documents of grey literature. These articles were then shortlisted by briefly reading through their abstracts to determine their connection to the topic; this step returned 5 scientific papers and 2 documents of grey literature. Overall, Ghana has limited relevant articles on this study topic, especially for grey literature.

### 3.5.8 References

#### Scientific papers

Alare, R.S., Owusu, E.H., Owusu, K. 2018. *Climate Smart Agriculture Practices in semi-arid Northern Ghana: implications for sustainable livelihoods*. Journal of Sustainable Development, 11, 5, 57-70.

Ayivor, J.S., Pabi, O., Ofori, B.D., Yirenya-Taiwiah, D.R., Gordon, C. 2016. *Agro-diversity in the forest-savannah transition zone of Ghana: a strategy for food security against climatic and socio-economic stressors*. Environment and Natural Resources Research, 6(1), 1-12.

Bandanaa, J., Egyir, I. S., Asante, I. 2016. *Cocoa farming households in Ghana consider organic practices as climate smart and livelihoods enhancer*. Agriculture & Food Security, 5, 29, 1-9.

Boakye-Achampong, S., Ohene-Yankyera, K., Aidoo, R., Sørensen, O. J. 2017. *Is there any economics in smallholder cocoyam production? Evidence from the forest agro-ecological zone of Ghana*. Agriculture & Food Security, 6, 44, 1-16.

Clottey, V. A., Agyare, W. A., Gyasi, K. O., Schreurs, M., Maatman, A., Abdulai, H., Dinku, R. K. 2006. *Composting to ensure food security: learning by doing*. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 18, 137. www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/10/clot18137.htm

#### Grey Literature

Mwinsigten, M. A., Dianon, P. P., Sabri, R. A. 2013. Indigenous foods for food sovereignty of women in Northern Ghana. Agroecology Fund.

Venhoeven, D. TRAX Program Support, 2014. *Orange-fleshed sweet potato brings health and livelihood to Pelungu, Ghana*, in: AFSA 2016. Agroecology: The Bold Future of Farming in Africa. AFSA & TOAM. Dar es Salaam. Tanzania.

#### Other literature

FAO. *Ghana at a Glance*. http://www.fao.org/ghana/fao-in-ghana/ghana-at-a-glance/en/. Accessed December 2019.

Ministry of Food and Agriculture, 2001. *Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and Figures; Statistics, Research and Information Directorate (SRID)*, Accra.
## 3.6 Togo

### 3.6.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective<fnref n="9" />

Located on Africa's West Coast, Togo is one of the smallest countries in the continent. The narrow strip of land is located between Ghana and Benin, and has a population of 7.6 million inhabitants. Since gaining independence from France in 1960, Togo has struggled to maintain political stability and to build a strong economy. The agricultural sector employs more than two thirds of Togo's active population and accounts for 41% of GDP. The country's main cash crops are cocoa, coffee and cotton. It is also one of the largest producers of phosphorus in the world, a frequently used fertilizer in the national agricultural sector. Togo is included in this study as country where food security and rural development are target sectors of the European Development Fund¹⁰.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.6.2 Synthesis of agronomic practices

Family farming is the main farming system described in the analysed literature. It includes both extensive rainfed crops and off-season small scale irrigated home-garden cropping. Production from these systems is both for self-consumption and marketing on local and national markets. Crops cultivated include horticultural products (e.g. tomatoes and onions) and cereals (e.g. sorghum, millet and maize). The main agricultural practices mentioned in the articles concern crop diversification and rotation, agroforestry and fertilization (mainly manure and organic compost). Factors influencing the adoption of these practices include soil fertility degradation and persistent economic, social and ecological challenges farming communities have to face. Among the latter, access to transport equipment is particularly relevant, especially for the use and recycling of organic matter. None of the articles mentioned post-harvest practices. Two studies focused on on-farm trials (Mackiewickz, 2016; Rossel, 2019), of which one (Mackiewickz, 2016) was related to a farmer field school approach (FFS).

### 3.6.3 Links to food security

Out of the five articles selected, two articles (Rossel, 2019; Levard et al., 2018) mentioned a positive contribution of agroecological practices to food and nutrition security. This contribution was indirectly evaluated based on increased household income, higher yields, diversified agricultural production and increased food availability. In addition, Rossel (2019) reported a link between improved food security and the development of agroecosystems that are more resilient to climate change.

### 3.6.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

From an economic perspective, the adoption of agroecological practices can lead to increased and stabilised income for farmers. Yield improvements of subsistence crops (e.g. sorghum and millet) after adopting sound agroecological practices (e.g. composting and minimum tillage) were associated with increased income at the household level (Rossel 2019). Levard and Mathieu (2018) note income stability as a positive economic impact of agroecological practices (e.g. use of manure and more generally integration between crop and livestock activities) at the household level, and increased employment opportunity and value added at a national level.

In terms of production, all the articles selected indicate an increase or stabilization of yield after implementation of a single fertilizing practice or multiple practices. Mackiewickz (2016) noted that the reduction of mineral fertilizer replaced by organic compost or manure did not negatively affect the yield of maize crops. Rossel (2019) noted a rise in yield of 140% within the first three years of use of organic fertilizer on subsistence agriculture crops. Levard and Mathieu (2018) have shown that when combining anti-erosion practises and organic fertilizer with a supplement of mineral fertilizer the yield of sorghum and millet are 50% higher on average (from 0.4 to 0.7 t per ha to 1.0 to 1.2 t per ha). In the case of maize in northern Togo, the use of mineral fertilizers was on average 38% lower in plots where compost was combined with soil and water conservation measures, compared to plots where such measures were not applied (Levard and Mathieu, 2018).

<footnote n="9">⁹ Sources (in addition to those listed below)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14106781
https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Togo-AGRICULTURE.html
https://www.gafspfund.org/projects/togo-agriculture-sector-support-project-pasa
¹⁰ https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/where-we-work/togo_en</footnote>
Finally, a project conducted by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (2019) found that associating composting and soil conservation practises made productivity rise to 3 t per ha.

As for the environmental benefits associated with the implementation of agroecological practices, Bakker et al. (2017) noted that market garden improves water conservation through the use of compost, effective soil preparation and the optimization of plant density.

Lastly, four cases studies recorded positive social impacts related to agroecological practices. Two studies showed that increasing participation of women in the implementation of agroecological practices improved regional gender equity (Mackiewickz 2016, Rossel 2019). Furthermore, a study recording an increase of income at a household level was directly linked to increased access to public healthcare (65% of the participants) and access to schooling (50% of beneficiaries) (Rossel 2019). A pilot experience report from Agronomes et Vétérinaires Sans Frontières (AVSF) (Bakker et al. 2017) also highlighted the importance of creating conditions for the development of agroecological practices. In that case by supporting access to donkey cart equipment for the transport of biomass, to enable its use and recycling in crop production, as well as to facilitate transport of tree seedlings and stones for the improvement of soil and water conservation measures.

### 3.6.5 Level of promotion of agroecology in the country: evidence from literature

No regional or national policies supporting agroecology have been recorded in the articles selected, except the National Institute of Technical support and Advisory (ICAT) in partnership with Agronomes et Vétérinaires Sans Frontières (AVSF) in northern Togo. However, the promotion of agroecology and diffusion of agroecological practices were initiated by various organization from the civil society: local NGOs RAFIA, CARTO and international NGOs, such as AVSF and INADES.

### 3.6.6 Conclusions

Overall, the studies analyzed suggest that agroecological practices can improve food and nutrition security in Togo. Crop diversification and rotation as well as various fertilisation practices have been shown to increase food availability, yield and income. However, no study assessed food security based on distribution and access to food resources. The studies also showed that there is a lack of participation from state actors in the promotion of agroecology and diffusion of agroecological practices. Furthermore, due to the exhaustive lack of available research and documentation (from the limited results of the search protocol and presence of multi-country studies, e.g. Levard and Mathieu 2018, Rossel 2019), a considerable need for research in this field is required, in order to gain clarity on the actual impact of agroecological practices on food and nutrition security.

### 3.6.7 Number of analysed documents

The protocol for literature review used in this study returned 11 scientific papers and no returns for grey literature. On the basis of a preliminary screening for exclusion, none of those articles were deemed suitable for the purpose of this research. Hence, the articles selected for this report were found outside the search protocol – in grey literature.

### 3.6.8 References

* Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) 2019. *Improving traditional systems of soil fertility*. https://afsAfrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/improving-traditional-systems-of-soil-fertility.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0GcpKxalAjFvtoqPTYEwZ1gUYb3QHSCwcw8IB2FWRtBK8f01zqMAhqzHo

* Bakker, T., Kambogue, F., Makenou, R., Lamboni, A. 2017. *Guide méthodologique pour l'équipement de petits groupes de producteurs en charrettes asines au Togo*. AVSF, ICAT, TOGO, I., RAFIA, UROPC-S. https://www.avsf.org/public/posts/2136/avsf_guide_charettes_asines_togo.pdf

* Mackiewickz, M, 2016. *Des champs-école pour l'agroécologie au Togo*. Fiche expérience innovante. Ruralter. AVSF.

* Levard, L., Mathieu, B. 2018. *CALAO Project: Agro-ecology: capitalization of experiences in West Africa; Factors that further or limit the development of agro-ecological practices; Evaluation of the socio-economic and agro-environmental effects*. AVSF-Gret. https://www.avsf.org/fr/posts/2217/full/calao-project-capitalization-of-experiences-in-west-africa-factors-that-further-or-limit-the-development-of-agro-ecological-practices-evaluation-of-the-socio-economic-and-agro-environmental-effects
Rossel, T. 2019. *Un réseau de fermes agroécologiques pour autonomiser des femmes au Togo et au Bénin.* Dakar, Sénégal: Innovation, environnement et développement (IED) en Afrique. http://www.iedafrique.org/Un-reseau-de-fermes-agroecologiques-pour-autonomiser-les-femmes-au-Togo-et-au.html
## 3.7 Benin

### 3.7.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective<fnref n="11" />

Located in West Africa, Benin is characterized by a climate system dominated by the alternation of a rainy season and a dry season (harmattan wind) and a rainfall pattern with regional disparities. Agriculture plays an important role in the economy, as it accounts for roughly 30% of the GDP and generates around 70% of employment. 550,000 smallholdings are estimated, averaging 1.7 ha each where subsistence farming of cereals and tubers dominates, and which are characterized by low inputs, low productivity and high vulnerability to climatic variations.

Crop production encompasses cotton – which is the main export crop -, pineapple, oil palm, cashew, and staple crops such as maize, cassava, sorghum, yam, cowpea and groundnut. Livestock, mainly in northern Benin, is characterized by traditional systems and animal production is insufficient to meet national demand – 58% for meat, 37% for milk<fnref n="12" />. As a result, the country's food situation is highly dependent on imports.

Though the food crops overall cover food requirements, they still fall short of the potential offered by the country's agroclimatic conditions<fnref n="13" />. Indeed, Benin has a large river system and only 11% of low-lying lands are exploited. However, the agricultural sector faces several constraints such as degradation of land fertility, climatic conditions, lack of knowledge and skills regarding water management and organic input production.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.7.2 Synthesis of agronomic practices

The types of cropping systems addressed by the analysed documents are mainly small-scale family farming, growing staple food crops (yam, millet, sorghum) and vegetable gardening for local markets. One article is also dealing with mango production. Cotton, as one of the major products of the country, did not appear in the documents analysed, as well as other cash crops such as pineapple, cashew or oil palm. Moreover, no study on crop-livestock integration appeared in the scientific literature whereas most of smallholder farms have mixed crop and livestock systems in the country.

The studied agronomic practices include crop rotations with legumes, the return of crop residues, insect netting, crop associations in market gardening, and the use of organic insecticide to combat fruit flies in mango orchards. Most experiments were conducted on-farm.

### 3.7.3 Links to food security

The effects of agroecological practices on food security were mentioned in four of the seven selected documents, and were perceived as positive, notably due to improved yields and/or a better economic situation of producers.

### 3.7.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

In terms of productivity associated with agroecological practices, the use of legumes (Aeschynomene histrix and Mucuna pruriens) intercropping with maize significantly increased yam yields in cropping sequences (average 14.5 and 16.0 t/ha) in comparison with traditional yam-based system maize or one-year fallow of Andropogon gayanus (average 9.0 and 7.5 t/ha). Yet, these cropping sequences with herbaceous leguminous plants decreased maize yields, probably due to competition for nutrients and light (Maliki et al. 2012). Integrated soil-crop management practice, combining the recommended mineral fertilizer dose to farmers and return of crop residues led to equivalent yields to those obtained with a high mineral fertilizer use (almost double the recommended dose) (Amouzou et al. 2018). Moreover, the use of netting protection led to considerably lower cabbage pest populations compared with foliar insecticide sprays. The study showed a significant two-fold higher production of marketable cabbages with netting protection compared with foliar insecticide sprays (Martin et al. 2006). The use of GF-120, an organic bait spray, reduced fruit flies infestation by more than 80% in mango orchards compared to untreated plots (Vayssières et al. 2009).

<footnote n="11">¹¹ DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.01.143</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4401f.pdf</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ https://agriculture.gouv.fr/benin, https://www.ifad.org/en/web/operations/country/id/benin</footnote>
From an economic point of view, the cropping sequences with herbaceous leguminous plants preceding yam led to an at least two-fold higher net revenue in comparison with traditional cropping sequences, in spite of 35% higher labour costs (Maliki et al. 2012). Regarding mosquito netting, net returns were higher with this practice (247 US$/100 m²) than using insecticides (149 US$/100 m²) (Martin and al. 2006).

Regarding environmental benefits, soil fertility was improved in legume-based cropping sequences, with greater biomass dry matter and recycled nitrogen compared with traditional cropping sequences (Maliki et al. 2012). Amouzou et al. (2018) came to similar conclusions, as integrated soil-crop management practice resulted in lower nutrient losses and positive nitrogen and phosphorus partial balances compared to the use of chemical fertilizers alone. Moreover, Dassou et al. (2019) indicated that the abundance of generalist predators and omnivores was significantly higher in tomato mixed-crop fields than in mono-crop fields. As a result, mixed-crop fields significantly reduced the abundance of Helicoverpa armigera, a major tomato pest, compared with mono-crop fields. In addition, the use of insect netting was effective in protecting human health by reducing hazardous insecticide spray and reducing environmental pollution from insecticide residues (Martin et al. 2006).

No noteworthy social elements were pointed out in the selected documents.

### 3.7.5 Level of promotion of agroecology in the country

No policy support to agroecology has been mentioned in the analyzed literature, and relatively few organizations implementing agroecology in development projects have been identified in the Benin gray literature compared to Senegal and Burkina Faso, for example.

Two analyzed articles discussed the factors influencing the adoption of new practices by farmers. Zoundji et al. (2018) reported that learning videos could effectively convince farmers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices and to change their behaviour with agrochemicals. It was shown an excellent way to encourage farmers to come up with their own innovation. Likewise, a study assessing cabbage farmers' opinions about the use of eco-friendly nets as an alternative to exclusive use of synthetic pesticides in Benin showed that external support was the main incentive toward their use, as farmers need easy access to knowledge and finance. For example, farmers members of a farmer association had more positive attitudes toward netting performances than those not members (Vidogbena et al. 2016). Higher costs and investments were also pointed out as barriers to the adoption of agroecological practices in several documents. More emphasis should therefore be put on technical and financial issues to upscale agroecological innovations.

### 3.7.6 Conclusions

Despite encouraging results from agroecological experiments in Benin, research activities or capitalization work are quite poor in regard of this review, notably about the main crops grown in the country (millet, sorghum, cotton). The present bibliographic study highlights the absence of a significant potential of agroecology for improving food security and farmer livelihoods in a sustainable way in the country. Particularly, few scientific evidences of farm development projects conducted by associations was found in the literature, despite studies on the adoption factors of agroecological practices. As a result, research and development focusing on agroecology need to be intensified in Benin.

### 3.7.7 Number of analysed documents

The applied protocol returned 115 documents, of these only 5 were considered matching the needs of this study. Two of the articles are based on results from the same study, and do not differ fundamentally (considered as a duplicate). Other three scientific papers were identified in a further step, providing a significant complement on pest control and insect diversity. In parallel, no usable data was found in the grey literature from 27 documents initially identified.

### 3.7.8 References

#### Scientific papers

Amouzou, K.A., Naab, J.B., Lamers, J.P.A., Becker, M., 2018. Productivity and nutrient use efficiency of maize, sorghum, and cotton in the West African Dry Savanna. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 181, 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201700139
Dassou, A.G., Vodouhè, S.D., Bokonon-Ganta, A., Goergen, G., Chailleux, A., Dansi, A., Carval, D., Tixier, P., 2019. Associated cultivated plants in tomato cropping systems structure arthropod communities and increase the Helicoverpa armigera regulation. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485319000117

Maliki, R., Sinsin, B., Floquet, A., 2012. Evaluating Yam-Based Cropping Systems Using Herbaceous Leguminous Plants in the Savannah Transitional Agroecological Zone of Benin. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 36, 440-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2011.646352

Maliki, R., Sinsin, B., Floquet, A., Cornet, D., Lancon, J., 2017. Sedentary yam-based cropping systems in West Africa: Benefits of the use of herbaceous cover-crop legumes and rotation-lessons and challenges. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41, 450-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1279252

Martin, T., Assogba-Komlan, F., Houndete, T., Hougard, J.M., Chandre, F., 2006. Efficacy of Mosquito Netting for Sustainable Small Holders' Cabbage Production in Africa. Journal of Economic Entomology, 99, 5.

Vayssieres, J.-F., Sinzogan, A., Korie, S., Ouagoussounon, I., Thomas-Odjo, A., 2009. Effectiveness of Spinosad Bait Sprays (GF-120) in Controlling Mango-Infesting Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Benin. ec 102, 515-521. https://doi.org/10.1603/029.102.0208

Vidogbena, F., Adegbidi, A., Tossou, R., Assogba-Komlan, F., Martin, T., Ngouajio, M., Simon, S., Parrot, L., Garnett, S.T., Zander, K.K., 2016. Exploring factors that shape small-scale farmers' opinions on the adoption of eco-friendly nets for vegetable production. Environment Development and Sustainability, 18, 1749-1770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9717-z

Zoundji, G.C., Okry, F., Vodouhe, S.D., Bentley, J.W., 2018. Towards sustainable vegetable growing with farmer learning videos in Benin. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 16, 54-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1428393
## 3.8 Ethiopia

### 3.8.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective

Ethiopia covers roughly 1.1 million km² and is an immensely diverse landscape. To the north and west are the high plateaus of the Simien Mountains characterised by deep gorges and valleys. Running through the center of the country is the Great Rift Valley. To the east and far north, lie the Ogaden and Danakil deserts respectively. Ethiopia is characterised by tropical monsoons with local precipitation highly dependent on elevation. The highlands are typically cool and wet while the lowlands to the east are arid and hot. Average annual rainfall in Ethiopia is around 900 mm, but varies immensely from year to year. Ethiopia has over 109 million inhabitants (second largest country in Africa), with the majority of the workforce currently employed in agriculture. Agriculture accounts for 50% of the country's GDP and grows a variety of crops including wheat, coffee, barley, sorghum, beans, teff, noug, and rapeseed (IFAD 2013). Moreover, Ethiopia hosts an impressive intra-crop diversity (varieties) as one of the eight centres of origin and diversity of agricultural products (Hadgu et al. 2009b). However, the cultural and natural heritage of Ethiopia is threatened by several factors including global climate change, overpopulation, and land degradation.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.8.2 Synthesis of agronomic practices

Selected studies focused on the effects of agroecological practices on family farms at the household level. Farms tended to be small-scale, extensive plots that were either subsistence or sold predominantly to local markets. Practices were implemented across Ethiopia from Amhara province in the west to Somali in the east. However, the majority of analysed projects was developed in the highlands and was targeting mostly arable crops, livestock, and/or agroforestry system. Additionally, the type of crops grown and their particular use varied greatly depending on the site. Crops that were often mentioned include tef, maize, barley, eucalyptus, wheat, beans, and sorghum. These crops were produced by applying at least one agroecological practice. Agroecological practices mentioned include intercropping, soil bunds, grass strips, agroforestry systems, diverse polycultures (inter and intra species diversity), water conservation practices (water harvesters), integrated crop livestock systems, integrated pest management, and direct seeding.

### 3.8.3 Links to food security

The effects of agroecological practices on food security within households were determined using either indirect or direct indicators. Studies frequently used household income to infer improved food security, assuming a direct (positive) link between income and food security (Ayalew 2011, Hadgu et al. 2009b, Meaza and Dimssie 2015, Feyisa et al. 2018, IFAD 2013). In several cases, studies claimed that as the soil fertility improved, crop yields would rise, and farmers would increase their income (Ayalew 2011, Hadgu et al. 2009b, IFAD 2015). Additionally, farmers would increase their income by selling new products such as eucalyptus (Meaza and Dimssie 2015, Feyisa et al. 2018). For example, 98% of households in one study in Tigray province were dependent to some extent on woodlots for income (Meaze and Dimisse 2015). Another community in Somali regional state found that by collectively removing the invasive plant prosopis and producing charcoal they would be able to generate enough income to feed their children three meals a day (IFAD 2013).

Other studies provided indicators that directly measured food security through changes in caloric consumption, the duration of food insecure periods, changes in the nutritional quality of the crop, and changes in dietary diversity (Hadgu et al. 2009a, Regassa 2016, Bond et al. 2014). High crop diversity was often related to reduced periods of food insecurity and higher calorie consumption (Hadgu et al. 2009a, Bond et al. 2014). For example in Hawassa city, 40% of home gardeners were dependent on their urban garden for income, 25% were food secure for the entire year and 15% were food insecure for six months (Regassa 2016).

### 3.8.4 Sustainability assessment addressing environmental, social and economic dimensions

Productivity is quantified in terms of yields (kg/ha, quintals, or total crop calories) and income (% of income or in Ethiopian Birr - ETB). Some studies compared former yields/income to new yields/income under agroecological practices (Ayalew 2011, IFAD 2013, Bond et al. 2014, Balehegn 2018). Ayalew (2011) noted a fourfold increase in maize yields, from 400 kg/ha to 1600 kg/ha after implementing soil conservation measures. Additionally, direct seeding of finger millet in a system of crop intensification resulted in yields that were 7.6 tons/ha (2.8
tons/ha in traditional fields) (Araya et al. 2018). Communities in the region of Somali found that by removing the invasive plant prosopis and using it to produce charcoal, they could increase their monthly income from 500 Birr (15.8 USD) to an average of 1,100 ETB (±35 USD) (IFAD 2013).

A few studies focused on an entirely new source of revenue, such as the additional income gained per tree (Meaza and Dimssie 2015, Regassa 2016). The majority of the studies looked at the productivity at different levels of adoption (Hadgu et al. 2009b, Feyisa et al. 2018, Araya et al. 2018). For example, Hadgu et al. (2009a) examined the total caloric crop yield according to varying degrees of biodiversity, in terms of species richness. High diversity farms had a 19% higher caloric crop yield than low diversity farms. Although studies vary greatly in the way they measure and compare productivity, none of the studies suggested a decrease in yields or income due to the implementation of agroecological practices.

Several studies looked at the additional economic effects of adopting agroecological practices. Potential economic benefits of agroecology include increased access to property, tools, expertise, influence, etc. The majority of studies discussed access to additional revenue sources (Meaza and Dimssie 2015, Regassa 2016, Feyisa et al. 2018, Bond et al. 2014, IFAD 2013). In agroforestry systems, smallholders were able to sell tree products such as fruits, firewood, charcoal, and fodder to generate additional income (Meaza and Dimssie 2015, IFAD 2013, Feyisa et al. 2018). One study found that average annual income from selling eucalyptus ranged from 11,000 to 15,000 ETB/ha for smallholders (Feyisa et al. 2018).

Additionally, increased access to livestock or urban garden space, allowed smallholders to diversify their income source (Regassa 2016, Bond et al. 2014). Agroecological practices were sometimes able to reduce input costs and thus improve the economic situation of the farmer (Hadgu et al. 2009a, Araya et al. 2018). For example, increased on farm-diversity and crop productivity reduced inorganic fertilizer costs (Hadgu et al. 2009a). Additionally, direct seeding of millet helped reduce the labour requirement (compared to broadcast seeding) by 75%, while also making it easier to weed (Araya et al. 2018). Finally, one study mentioned using nutrient rich tree fodder to improve the nutritional quality of milk to generate a higher price premium (Balehegn 2018).

The environmental benefit of agroecological practices was typically a secondary priority for most studies and usually followed a larger discussion on productivity. Environmental benefits include increasing biodiversity, reducing pollution, promoting soil health, and improving water management. Although different practices were used, such as grass strips, terraces, and polycultures, they focused on two services (Ayalew 2011, Meaza and Dimssie 2015, Balehegn 2018). The environmental impacts of agroecological practices centered on promoting soil health and biodiversity (Hadgu et al. 2009a, Hadgu et al. 2009b, Ayalew 2011, IFAD 2013, Meaza and Dimssie 2015, Araya et al. 2018, Feyisa et al. 2018, Balehegn 2018). In Eucalyptus woodlots, soil organic matter increased, reduced erosion and lowered bulk density (Hadgu et al. 2009, Feyisa et al. 2018). Moreover, soil conservation measures such as bunds, terraces, and grass strips helped lower erosion, increase organic matter and raise available nitrogen (Hadgu et al. 2009b, Ayalew 2011, Feyisa et al. 2018, Balehegn 2018).

Additionally, some soil conservation practices also helped to increase biodiversity. For example, re-greening measures provided habitat for threatened mammals and birds such as the White-Billed Starling (Balehegn 2018). Studies also investigated how other agroecological practices affect biodiversity. For example, the effect of adopting diversified woodlots on homestead biodiversity and invasive species removal to native seed bank regeneration (Meaza and Dimssie 2015, IFAD 2013). Finally, two studies addressed climate adaptation and mitigation by promoting carbon sequestration and planting strategies to promote drought resiliency (Araya et al. 2018, IFAD 2013).

Studies were least likely to investigate social benefits of agroecological practices than other indicators in their analysis. Social indicators and measures differed greatly depending on the particular study and did not follow any clear trends. The social benefits in this overview include increased social cohesion, greater access to services, and protecting traditional practices (Ayalew 2011, IFAD 2013, Bond et al. 2014, Meaza and Dimssie 2015, Regassa 2016, Araya et al. 2018). In other examples, households reported being able to afford school fees, access to bank services, and purchasing mobile phones (Meaza and Dimssie 2015, IFAD 2013).

### 3.8.5 Level of promotion of agroecology in the country: evidence from the literature

No study mentioned nation-wide policies or projects to scale up agroecological practices. However, Ethiopian universities, foundations, nurseries, regional governments, and institutes actively supported, in some form, the studies included in this brief (Ayalew 2011, Bond et al. 2014, Meaza and Dimssie 2015, Regassa 2016, Araya et al. 2018, Feyisa et al. 2018, Balehegn 2018). Additionally, international institutes, NGOs, and foreign governments commonly funded or supported agroecological research or projects (Hadgu et al. 2009a, Hadgu et al. 2009b, IFAD 2013, Bond et al. 2015, Araya et al. 2018, Balehegn 2018). Academic articles typically
involved international and Ethiopian researchers working with local farmers through universities and research institutes (Ayalew 2011, Meaza and Dmisse 2015, Regassa 2016, Feyisa et al. 2018). Case studies in grey literature were more likely to include NGOs, institutes, and state government in the project (IFAD 2013, Bond et al. 2014, Araya et al. 2018, Balehegn 2018).

### 3.8.6 Conclusions

Agroecological practices included in these studies had a slightly larger focus on agroforestry (eucalyptus woodlots) and soil conservation measures (bunds, grass strips, and terraces). Researchers typically indirectly infer the link between yields, income, and improved food security. However, several studies look at indicators such as caloric yield or food insecure periods. Studies that included economic measurements discussed how agroecological practices could generate new revenue sources, reduce input costs, and improve product quality. Environmental benefits tended to overlap with other effects but focused on promoting soil health and biodiversity. Social benefits were less likely to be included and varied depending on the study.

Although these studies have demonstrated the potential success of agroecological practices at the household level, there are several notable limitations and obstacles: these initiatives are very context specific and implementation in a different location could yield completely different results; market access is a major limitation when farmers do not have a market for new products, and may not be able to explore new revenue sources. Moreover, the initial cost of investment is extremely high in terms of both time and capital. Farmers often do not have the time to learn complicated practices nor the capital to purchase expensive new equipment or inputs. It is precisely because of these limitations that studies that could document successful practices were focusing on agroforestry and soil conservation measures. These measures are low-input, adaptable, and generate quick results.

### 3.8.7 Number of analysed documents

The protocol for literature review applied in this study returned 50 scientific papers, and no grey literature documents. Of these, 6 were considered matching the needs of the study. Grey literature was further screened by reviewing the work of several organizations implementing agroecological practices within the country (McKnight Foundation, World Agroforestry Centre, AFSA, etc.) and 4 relevant documents were identified.

### 3.8.8 References

#### Scientific papers

Ayalew, A. (2011). Construction of Soil Conservation Structures for improvement of crops and soil productivity in the Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 1(1). https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEES/article/view/763

Feyisa, D., Kissi, E., Floe, Z.K. (2018). Rethinking Eucalyptus globulus Labill. Based Land Use Systems in Smallholder Farmers Livelihoods: A Case of Kolobo Watershed, West Shewa, Ethiopia. Ekológia (Bratislava) 37. 10.2478/eko-2018-0006.

Hadgu, K.M., Kooistra, L., Rossing, W.A.H. (2009a). Spatial variation in biodiversity, soil degradation and productivity in agricultural landscapes in the highlands of Tigray, northern Ethiopia. Food Security 1: 83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-008-0008-5

Hadgu, K.M., Kooistra, L., Rossing, W.A.H. (2009b). Assessing the effect of Faidherbia albida based land use systems on barley yield at field and regional scale in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Food Security, 1(3), 337-350.

Meaza, H., Demssie, B. (2015). Managing fragile homestead trees to improve livelihoods of land-poor farmers in the Northern Highlands of Ethiopia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 36(1), 57–66.

Regassa, R. (2016). Useful plant species diversity in home gardens and its contribution to household food security in Hawassa city, Ethiopia. African Journal of Plant Science. 10. 211-233. 10.5897/AJPS2016.1439.

#### Grey Literature

Araya, H., Asmelash, A., Misgina, S., Legesse, H., Zibelo, H., Woreda, T., Assefa, T. Mohammad, E. (2013). SCI: Planting with Space, AFSA. https://afsAfrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/sci-planting-with-space.pdf
Balehegn, M. (2018). Drought tolerant Ficus thonningii silvopastures sustain livestock and crops in Northern Ethiopia. AFSA. https://afsAfrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ficus-thonningi-eng-online.pdf

Bond, V., Amedeivand, T., Mangiest, F. (2014). Securing the livelihoods of small-scale farmers in Ethiopia, AFSA. https://afsAfrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/azgo-ethiopia.pdf

IFAD. (2013). Learning for rural change 14 stories from Ethiopia, International Fund for

Agricultural Development (IFAD), www.ileia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Learning-for-rural-change-Ethiopia.pdf

Supplementary literature

FAO. (2016). AQUASTAT Country Profile-Ethiopia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Rome, Italy.

Peterson, A. 2018. Koppen Climate Types of Ethiopia, Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:K%C3%B6ppen_climate_types_of_Ethiopia.svg
## 3.9 Kenya

### 3.9.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective<fnref n="14" />

Arid and semi-arid landscapes dominate great part of Kenya (83-89%) (GoK 2018). The majority of Kenya's agriculture is therefore in areas of high and medium potential in the central and western regions (Biovision 2019).

98% of agriculture is rainfed, represented in great part by small-scale farming systems (GoK 2018). 60% of Kenya's income is derived from the agricultural sector, which also provides 60% of total employment (UNEP, 2015).

Staple crops include maize, cassava, rice, wheat, arrowroot, millet, potatoes and sorghum. A number of horticultural products are produced for own-consumption and local markets. Horticultural produce, fruits and floriculture are important subsectors for the export market. Additional cash crops such as cotton, sugar, coffee, tea and chat are also important for the sector. Dairy production is central to many small-scale mixed farming systems.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.9.2 Synthesis of agronomic practices

The selected studies concerned mostly small-scale agriculture, typically focusing on family farms at the household and farm level. Examples of extensive and intensive farming systems were found as well as homegardens. No information was provided regarding land ownership or average farm size. However, one paper reported that one million farmers are farming 0.5 million hectares of land using organic methods in Kenya (UNEP 2008). A wide variety of food crops are grown in Kenya, but only a selected group were observed in the reviewed studies. These included food crops such as maize, sorghum, arrow root, rice, vegetables (unspecified), kale, beans, and coffee. Fodder crops included napier grass, Brachiaria grass and Desmodium.

A range of agroecological practices were described in the analysed cases. Some cases specifically focused on one practice, for example push-pull and climate adapted push-pull farming; sustainable rice intensification (SRI); improved maize fallows with Hyptis spicigera; agroforestry. Other cases reported the outcomes of training programmes that promoted an integrated approach to farming (UNEP 2008). These programmes included the following agroecological practices: diversified crop production, biointensive agriculture (organic farming method that focuses on maximising yields from very small spaces with practices including compost production, raised beds, dense plant spacing, and companion planting), natural soil fertility management, integrated pest management, soil and water conservation techniques, seed saving, organic farming methods, cover-cropping; and green manures. One paper (Wainaina et al. 2017) examined the impact of a suite of practices in isolation and combination, including: terracing, soil bunds, crop residue management, manure use, zero tillage, and use of improved maize seeds. No information was provided on post-harvest techniques for storage or loss prevention.

Reason for implementing agroecological practices varied between practices. In general farmers aimed to improve yields and to increase or diversify income. For some farmers there was also a desire to reduce costs associated with inputs. Maize farmers used push-pull farming and improved fallows to combat yield losses from Striga weed parasitism and stem borer moth (Khan et al. 2011; Othira et al. 2013; Midega et al. 2015). SRI was interesting for some farmers as it helps with resistance to wind lodging of rice (Niidiri, 2013). Agroforestry offered potential for improving climate resilience for farmers in drier regions (Quandt et al. 2017).

### 3.9.3 Links to food security

One study reviewed specifically linked agroecological practices to measurable improvements in food security. Farming training in IPM, cover cropping and green manures has resulted in the average number of food secure months increasing from 1-3 to 3-6 in over 2000 households (MEFE, in UNEP 2008). Despite limited direct evidence, the increased or diversified yields and increased income reported in the other studies may have led to improved household food security. Food security at community, regional, and national scales was not mentioned in any article. Assessment of the nutritional security agroecological practices provided was limited to four cases. Increased legume production improved protein intake amongst children (MEFE, in UNEP 2008).

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ References used here are additional to the literature review sources for the purpose of context</footnote>
Agroforestry diversified household diets through increased on-farm availability of fruits (Quandt et al. 2017). Crop diversification in general had the same effect (EAT, in UNEP 2008) as did the specific reintroduction of traditional African leafy vegetables to farming systems (AFSA 2016). Planting of fruit trees and inclusion of other diversified crop systems improved household nutritional status (C-MAD, in UNEP 2018).

### 3.9.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

Economic benefits were generated by a number of agroecological practices either by increasing or stabilizing income, reducing costs, or a combination of all three. Wainaina et al. (2017) studied the effects of three conservation agriculture practices on maize farmers' incomes across Kenya. They found that zero tillage, amending soil with manure and using improved maize varieties increased income by 16%, 14% and 15% respectively. However, when these three practices were combined incomes increased by 35% on average. Terracing, soil bunds, crop residue management and use of chemical fertilizers had no impact on income (Wainaina et al. 2017). Farmers training on natural soil fertility management, integrated weed, pest and disease management, soil and water conservation, and seed saving led to an increase in farmer income of 40% (SACDEP, in UNEP 2008). In some cases, only qualitative statements were provided regarding changes to income. Biointensive agriculture has increased farmer incomes allowing them to invest in capital assets and pay for school fees (Oakland Institute 2015). Diversifying production led to farmers earning a premium price in the case of growing traditional African leafy vegetables (AFSA 2016) or increased income stability in the case of agroforestry (Quandt et al. 2017; C-MAD, in UNEP 2018). Some farmers have been able to generate income from selling Desmodium seeds under the push-pull farming system (Khan et al 2011). Several practices have reduced the use of synthetic fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, thereby reducing farmers' costs (Othira et al. 2008; UNEP 2008; Khan et al. 2011; Ndiiri et al 2013; Midega et al. 2015). However, levels of inputs or transition costs were not quantified in any of the cases.

Farm productivity was enhanced by agroecological practices in all cases. Nine cases reported quantifiable yield increases. Push-pull Farming has increased maize yields from 1 to 3.5 t/ha and sorghum yields from 1 to 2 t/ha compared to monocultures (Khan et al 2011). A climate-adapted variation of this system (which utilizes drought resistant crops in place of the usual crops, e.g. drought resistant maize or sorghum in place of maize; Brachiaria grass instead of napier; and greenleaf Desmodium in place of silverleaf Desmodium) has increased maize yields by 105-333% compared to monocultures (Midega et al. 2015). Rotating maize cultivation with improved fallows of H. spicigera increased yields by 55% compared to normal fallows and 90% compared to continued cultivation (Othira et al. 2008). Sustainable Rice Intensification increased rice yields by 33% to 1.6 tons per ha compared to traditional methods (Ndiiri et al. 2013). Biointensive agriculture increased maize yields by 150% and kale yields by 300% (Oakland Institute 2015). Organic farming methods were reported to have increased yields by 179% on average for 1 million farmers in Kenya compared to yields before these practices had been used (UNEP 2008). A number of training programs reported increases in crop yields, although the causal relationship between specific practices and yield increases was unclear. Training on tree planting, organic farming methods and soil conservation was linked to two times higher maize yields, increasing from an average of 2 t/ha to 4 t/ha on 500 farms (C-MAD, in UNEP 2008). Integrated training on crop diversification, reducing pesticide use, soil conservation techniques and application of organic manure has increased maize yields by 71% and bean yields by 158% compared to traditional practices (EAT, in UNEP 2008). Another training programme that focused on IPM, cover cropping, and green manures, was shown to double bean and groundnut yields (MEFE, in UNEP 2008). Diversification of crop production also increased farm productivity (Quandt et al 2017; AFSA 2016; UNEP 2015).

Ecological benefits were reported qualitatively in terms of improved soil fertility, water retention and chemical input reduction. The four training programmes reviewed described increases in soil fertility as a result of their integrated approach to farming (UNEP 2008). Push-pull farming (and the climate-adapted variant) highlighted increased soil organic matter content, and soil nitrogen content as a result of biological fixation from Desmodium (Khan 2011 et al 2011; Midega et al. 2015). Push-pull farming (Khan et al. 2011; Midega et al. 2015), agroforestry (UNEP 2008), double digging (a technique that require a deep digging of soil for initial cultivation of land) (Oakland Institute 2015), and integrated farmer training programmes (SACDEP & C-MAD, in UNEP 2008) were all reported to enhance soil water retention. SRI reduced overall water requirements by 28% (Ndiiri et al. 2013). Reductions in chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides were also recorded but not quantified in terms of quantity or wider life cycle impact. Push-pull farming reduced the use of all three inputs (Khan et al. 2011; Midega et al. 2015). SRI reduced fertilizer use and farmers opted for manure instead (Niidiri et al. 2013). Maize rotations with improved fallows reduced herbicide requirements (Othira et al. 2008). IPM led to reductions in pesticide use (MEFE program, in UNEP 2008).
Agroecological practices generated social benefits beyond increased income and food security. Push-pull farming has increased farmers' social capital through the development of farmer-led networks and farmer field schools (Khan et al. 2011). Biointensive farming led to enhanced community cohesion, the development of partnerships between farmers, and improved access to health and education (Oakland Institute 2015). Community farmer training programmes led to greater cooperation between farmers and improved community cohesion (UNEP 2008). Reduced pesticide use was linked to improved farmer health (EAT, in UNEP 2008). The use of a mechanical weeder in SRI led to better gender equality as men were more likely to share the task of weeding compared to when manual weeding was the only option. This enabled children to spend more time at school (Niidiri 2013).

### 3.9.5 Promotion of agroecology in the country: evidence from the literature

The cases reviewed showed how agroecological practices are being promoted by local community groups and research institutes. Local community groups tended to take a more holistic approach to agricultural development, offering technical advice for the implementation of a range of practices relating to soil health, water conservation, crop diversification, and input reduction or substitution (UNEP 2008). Research institutes, on the other hand, tended to focus their efforts on single practices, for example, push-pull farming, SRI, or improved fallows (Othira 2008; Khan et al 2011; Niidiri et al. 2013; Midega et al. 2015). No government policies were mentioned to be supporting agroecology in any of the literature. However, the Kenya Government is currently in the early stages of implementing a framework for Climate Smart Agriculture (GoK 2018). No certification is presently available that reflects the use of the agroecological practices analysed. However, organic certification is available in Kenya and organic farmers are represented by the Kenya Organic Agriculture Network (KOAN) (UNEP 2008).

### 3.9.6 Conclusions

The impact of agroecological practices is likely to be highly context dependent, and so the cases presented here should be viewed within their specific settings. Furthermore, each practice has its own purpose related to particular crops and farming contexts. Despite this caveat, it is clear that a number of practices are already being scaled out, in particular push-pull farming which has been adopted by tens of thousands of farmers in East Africa (Khan et al. 2011) and organic farming which is used by a million farmers in Kenya (UNEP 2008). Training programmes conducted at the community level also show promise in helping farmers move toward a range of integrated practices that foster ecological resource management, good yields, and improved livelihoods. Taken together, the practices presented in this country profile demonstrate potential for improving economic, social and ecological aspects of smallholder farming in Kenya.

The economic benefits of agroecological practices in the literature analysed were primarily assessed at the household level. There was a lack of information about transition costs or labour and input requirements for the adoption of agroecological practices. From an agronomic perspective, agroecological practices appear to offer great potential for improving yields for a range of crops. More research is needed to understand under what conditions such improvements can be achieved, so as to understand the applicability of these practices to regions with different soil, weather or other factors. Cases that reported environmental impacts, primarily focused on the benefits of agroecology on soil and water conservation as well as reduced input use. However, there is a lack of measurable data regarding this impact. The community promotion of agroecological practices has been demonstrated to lead to social benefits such as improved community cohesion.

There is a shortage of studies that specifically link agroecological practices to changes in food security status of farmers or communities in Kenya. In particular, there is a lack of long-term studies assessing adoption of practices against a baseline or control group. As a result, there are very limited sources of quantifiable data available. This shortcoming may be a result of the literature review method chosen. This seems likely when the limited results found relating to agroforestry is considered, given the location of The World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi. Nonetheless, it is clear that more research is needed to assess which practices are being adopted by farmers and which of these effectively improve food security at household, community or national levels.

### 3.9.7 Number of analyzed documents

The protocol for literature review applied in this study returned 592 scientific papers and 22 documents of grey literature. A final selection of six peer-reviewed papers has been included in the final analysis. In addition, three pieces of grey literature were analysed. One grey literature source (UNEP 2008) provided 4 useful case studies and hence 13 cases are referred to in the profile.
3.9.8 References

**Scientific papers**

Khan, Z., Midega,C., Pittchar J., Pickett, J., Bruce, T. 2011. *Push—pull technology: a conservation agriculture approach for integrated management of insect pests, weeds and soil health in Africa*. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9(1), 162-170.

Midega, C., Bruve, T., Pickett, J., Pittchar, J., Murage, A., Khan, Z. 2015. *Climate adapted companion cropping increases agricultural productivity in East Africa*. Field Crops Research 180, 118-125

Ndiiri, J., Mati, B., Home, P., Odongo, B., Uphoff, N. 2013. *Adoption, constraints and economic returns of paddy rice under the system of rice intensification in Mwea, Kenya*. Agricultural Water Management 129, 44-55.

Othira, J. O., Deng A. L., Onek L. A., Kemey J., Omolo, E.O. 2008. *Potential application of Hyptis spicigera for biological control of Striga hermonthica infestation*. African Journal of Agricultural Research 3(10), 747-752.

Quandt, A., Neufeldt H., McCabe J. T. 2017. *The role of agroforestry in building livelihood resilience to floods and drought in semiarid Kenya*. Ecology and Society 22(3), 10.

Wainaina, P., Tongruksawattana, S., Qaim, M. 2017. *Synergies between Different Types of Agricultural Technologies in the Kenyan Small Farm Sector*. The Journal Of Development Studies 53, 1974-1990.

**Grey Literature**

AFSA. 2016. *African leafy vegetable enterprise boosts livelihood of rural communities in Kenya*. In *Agroecology: The Bold Future of Farming in Africa*. AFSA & TOAM: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Oakland Institute. 2015. *Biointensive Agriculture training program in Kenya*. Accessed on 31/10/19. Available from: https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/biointensive-agriculture-training

UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity Building Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development (CBTF). 2008. *Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa*. United Nations: New York & Geneva

**Additional literature used for context**

Biovision. 2019. *AEZs:Kenya System*. Accessed on 9th December 2019. Available from: https://www.infonet-biovision.org/EnvironmentalHealth/AEZs-Kenya-System

Government of the Republic of Kenya (GoK). 2018. *Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Implementation Framework-2018-2027*.

Sombroek, W.G., Braun, H.M.H. and van der Pouw, B.J.A. (1982). *Exploratory Soil Map and Agro-Climatic Zone Map of Kenya, 1980*. Scale: 1:1'000'000. Exploratory Soil Survey Report No. E1. Kenya Soil Survey Ministry of Agriculture - National Agricultural Laboratories, Nairobi, Kenya

UNEP. 2015. *Green Economy Sector Study on Agriculture in Kenya*. United Nations Environment Programme.
## 3.10 Tanzania

### 3.10.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective<fnref n="15" />

Tanzania is located in East Africa, with varied terrain including plains, plateaus, and highlands. Agricultural land represents 42% of total land area and 77% of the population is employed in the agricultural sector. Rainfall in the central and southern highlands occurs during one growing season from November to April, while rain falls over two periods in the northeastern highlands and coastal regions. Temperature also varies regionally, with hotter daily temperatures around 30°C in the coastal areas and cooler temperatures (15-22°C) in the highlands. Agricultural production is affected by unreliable rainfall and droughts, with rainfed maize, beans, rice, sunflower, and cassava among the main food crops cultivated by smallholder farmers.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.10.2 Synthesis of agronomic practices

Selected research studies and projects were targeting primarily smallholder farms and investigated a variety of agroecological practices. These practices include livelihood diversification (fish farming, livestock integration), crop diversification (vegetable production, legumes, pumpkins, local varieties), no-till, maize-legume intercropping, crop rotation, cover cropping, mulching, terracing and contour ridges, and incorporation of organic fertilizers. Crop diversification and intercropping in maize-based cropping systems were the practices most commonly examined.

### 3.10.3 Links to food security

Only one empirical study directly measured food security; this study found that diversifying farming with integrated vegetable and fish production increased the diversity and quantity of food items available for consumption (Limbu et al. 2017). Indirect measurements of crop yields and farmers income indicated improvements in food security in all scientific studies, while all grey literature documents reported that adoption of agroecological practices led to better food security. In particular, better food security was achieved after soil management practices increased crop yields, especially for maize, which is the dietary staple of farm households.

### 3.10.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

All analysed cases claimed that agroecological practices had improved agricultural productivity. In one scientific study, a suite of soil management practices (cover crops, terracing, mulching, crop rotation, intercropping and organic fertilizer) led to improvements in yields for all cultivated crops, with 11% higher maize yields, 11% higher cow pea yields, and 56% higher pumpkin yields compared to crops under conventional production (Miyashita 2006). Soil conservation practices doubled maize yields from 1.3 to 2.6 t/ha and bean yields from 0.7 to 1.7 t/ha over a sample of 6,000 participants of a conservation agriculture project (Oakland Institute 2014). Farmer participants in a different conservation agriculture project reported 50% higher yields in fields where they had used practices of legume diversification, crop rotation, no-till, and agroforestry, compared to fields where they had not applied these practices (Oakland Institute 2001). The addition of more of the aforementioned agroecological practices to a farming system was associated with greater yield increases (Arslan et al. 2017).

Scientific studies examined the impact of legume diversification and intercropping on crop yields. One study found that maize yields were up to five times higher, with average yields between 0.75-1.25 t/ha before adoption compared to 1.88 to 3.75 t/ha after several years of legume intercropping (Marietha et al. 2011); intercropping also resulted in 20% higher productivity for pigeonpea adopters compared to non-adopters (Asfaw et al. 2012). Finally, an innovative study integrating aquaculture with vegetable production found that irrigating vegetable plots with nutrient-rich water from fish ponds resulted in yield increase (2.5 to 3 times higher than conventional system) (Limbu et al. 2017).

All cases reported improvements in economic indicators linked to implementation of agroecological practices. In several studies and reports, a higher farmer's income resulted from increased crop yields leading to an

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ Sources (in addition to the references below): http://www.fao.org/3/i9836en/i9836EN.pdf</footnote>
increase in sales (Oakland Institute 2001; Marietha et al. 2011; Arslan et al. 2017; Limbu et al. 2017). Diversification at field and farm-level led to greater profits: net-income for pigeonpea adopters was 21% higher than that of farmers who only cultivated maize (Asfaw et al. 2012), while farmers reported that intercropping lablab bean (Lablab purpureus) helped them accessing additional income through crop sales. As a result, some families were able to purchase livestock assets (Oakland Institute 2001). Integrating livestock into their farming systems provided families with a source of income (European Commission 2015). Price premiums related to agroecological practices increased the price farmers received for their products, positively impacting household income. A survey of 326 families found that farmers with organic certification had an eleven times higher annual mean profit, compared to conventional/traditional farmers (Miyashita et al. 2011). The higher quality milk a farmer obtained through strip grass animal fodder resulted in higher market prices (Oakland Institute 2014). Finally, farmers reported a reduction in costs by substituting synthetic fertilizer with agroecological practices enhancing soil fertility (Oakland Institute 2001).

Soil conservation practices such as terracing, contour-ridges, no-till, grass strips, and intercropping were found to reduce soil erosion and improve drought tolerance by increasing water availability (Oakland Institute 2001; Oakland Institute 2014; European Commission 2015), which was particularly valued in areas with variable rainfall (Arslan et al. 2017). In one village, a project implementing a suite of soil management practices combined with the construction of solar lamps led to a reduction in deforestation, and an increase in soil organic matter (European Commission 2015). Finally, substituting locally available inputs reduced reliance on fossil-fuel based synthetic fertilizers; examples include irrigating vegetable plots with fish pond water (Limbu et al. 2017) and intercropping with nitrogen-rich legume crops (Oakland Institute 2001).

Only a few documents assessed the social impact of agroecology. In three cases, households achieved social outcomes through improved incomes associated with adopting agroecological practices. In a scientific study, households reported they were now able to pay for school fees and thereby access education for their children (Marietha et al. 2011). In a project report, the economic benefits of conservation agriculture allowed families to strategically reinvest earnings in their community and household in a way that reduced their own poverty (Oakland Institute 2001). Another report explained that greater agricultural earnings increased women's access to disposable income and thus improved their independence (European Commission 2015). Other social outcomes resulted from village participation in project activities that catalyzed change and self-organization of community members, gave villagers more job opportunities, and trained farmers in financial management (Oakland Institute 2001; Oakland Institute 2014). Labour requirements of agroecological practices were examined; organic agriculture required more hours of labour (Miyashita et al. 2014), while no-till conservation agriculture reduced labour because the task of plowing was avoided (Oakland Institute 2001). This gave household members more time to conduct other activities and socialize (Marietha et al. 2011).

**3.10.5 Level of promotion of agroecology in the Country: Evidence from the literature**

Most studies acknowledged that farmers would need institutional support to implement agroecological practices, in the form of training and access to seeds. Implied in this statement is that these services are not currently provided by Tanzanian agricultural extension agents. Most existing efforts of agroecological project implementation and research are funded by international institutions or governments, such as the European Union. The sizeable body of grey literature on agroecological practices in Tanzania indicates substantial NGO support for these initiatives.

**3.10.6 Conclusions**

Nearly all studies found that agroecology was linked to a positive impact on food security; in particular, all cases reported improved crop yields and economic benefits from the adoption of agroecological practices. While some of these studies were conducted with a small sample size and were dependent on certain conditions for implementation (e.g. fish ponds require access to water), similar results were found for studies with very large sample sizes. Some of the analysed projects have already been scaled up to a regional level, but replication would require assistance through field schools or other technical support. Farmers' access to technologies and resources might limit the potential of some approaches to alleviate poverty for the poorest; for example, fish ponds and organic certification require high upfront costs. There was a noticeable lack of research examining whether agroecology can effectively address social equity issues, delivering food security benefits to the most vulnerable households.
**3.10.7 Number of analysed documents**

The applied protocol for literature review allowed identifying eight documents: four grey literature reports and four scientific peer-reviewed articles.

**3.10.8 References**

***Scientific papers***

Arslan, A., Belotti, F., Lipper, L. (2017). *Smallholder productivity and weather shocks: Adoption and impact of widely promoted agricultural practices in Tanzania*. Food Policy, 69, 68-81. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.005

Asfaw, S., Shiferaw, B., Simtowe, F., Lipper, L. (2012). *Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia*. Food Policy, 37(3), 283-295. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.02.013

Limbu, S. M.; Shoko, A. P.; Lamtane, H. A.; Kishe-Machumu, M. A.; Joram, M. C.; Mbonde, A. S.; Mgana, H. F.; Mgaya, Y. D. (2017). *Fish polyculture system integrated with vegetable farming improves yield and economic benefits of small-scale farmers*. Aquaculture Research, 48(7), 3631-3644. doi:10.1111/are.13188

Owenya M.Z., Mariki, W.L., Kienzle, J., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A. (2011). *Conservation agriculture (CA) in Tanzania: the case of the Mwangaza B CA farmer field school (FFS), Rhotia Village, Karatu District, Arusha*. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9:1, 145-152, DOI: 10.3763/ijas.2010.0557

***Grey literature***

European Commission. (2015). *Chololo Ecovillage: a model of good practice in climate change adaptation and mitigation*, AFSA. https://afsAfrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/03_chololo-book-final-lowres.pdf

Miyashita, C. (2016). *Can organic farming be an alternative to improve well-being of smallholder farmers in disadvantaged areas? A case study of Morogoro region, Tanzania*. International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development 2016 Vol.7 No.1 pp.160-166, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Master's Thesis.
http://www.suaire.sua.ac.tz:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1191/CHIE%20MIYASHITA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Oakland Institute. (2001). *Conservation Agriculture in Tanzania*. Oakland Institute. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/Conservation_Agriculture_Tanzania.pdf

Oakland Institute. (2014). *Soil and Water Conservation on the Slopes of Kilimanjaro*, Oakland Institute. https://afsAfrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/soil_water_conservation_kilimanjaro_tanzania.pdf
## 3.11 Malawi

### 3.11.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective<fnref n="16" />

Malawi is a land-locked country located in Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa. The agricultural sector is the most important in Malawi's economy; 83% of the population lives in rural areas, most of whom are smallholder farmers who depend on rainfed agriculture for their livelihoods. Malawi has a tropical continental climate, although highland areas in Northern Malawi have more temperate conditions. Climate is greatly influenced by the large mass of Lake Malawi, which extends along two-thirds of Malawi's border. The agricultural growing season occurs during the rainy season from November to April. Malawi is prone to climate-related natural disasters, such as drought and flooding, which have increased in frequency and intensity during the past two decades.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.11.2 Synthesis of agronomic practices

Smallholder farmers were primarily cultivating maize and legume crops (primarily groundnuts and soybean) intended to meet household consumption. Consequently, the majority of studies focused on agroecological practices connected to maize-based systems. Intercropping was the most common agroecological practice investigated, with 9 out of 14 studies including this practice. Due to the soil fertility benefits of nitrogen-fixing legumes, the introduction of intercropping was accompanied by a reduction in synthetic fertilizer inputs. Intercropping precludes monocultures, so in fields that had previously been maize monocultures, crop diversification was implemented. Crop diversification was also assessed at the farm-level, with more diversified farms including fruit trees, cereal crops (sorghum, millet), vegetable crops, and legume crops, both annual (cow pea, bambara nut, groundnut) and semi-perennial (pigeonpea, mucuna). The impact of crop residue management was also frequently examined, with 6 of 14 studies incorporating this practice. The focus on intercropping, diversification and crop residue practices is perhaps unsurprising, as these are techniques traditionally used in some regions of Malawi. A few papers investigated the impact of agroforestry practices; in particular, planting fertilizer trees and fruit trees. Finally, soil management practices of compost-manure application, mulching, and crop rotation were also included in several studies. Detail on these studies is provided in the next chapters.

### 3.11.3 Links to food security

Nearly all studies (11/12) found that agroecological practices had a positive impact on indicators of food security. Indeed, the effectiveness of agroecological practices to combat food insecurity is a primary reason that some farmers continue to use traditional agroecological practices of soil management, crop diversification, and local varieties of maize (Briggs and Moyo 2012). Eight studies measured crop yield as an indicator of food security, while four studies used direct indicators of food security. Agroecological practices served to improve the food security for a range of populations. Analysis of nationally-representative survey data showed a positive correlation between diverse diets and on-farm crop species diversity (Jones et al. 2016). In another study, village-level adoption of legume intercropping and crop rotation was linked to improved child nutrition over time using anthropometric data (Bezner Kerr et al. 2010). In a related study, HIV-affected households who implemented a number of agroecological practices (compost manure application, crop-residue incorporation, legume-maize intercropping and rotation), reported that these practices had led to better food security, despite their more vulnerable socio-economic position (Nyantaki-Frimpong et al. 2016). These agroecological practices, in addition to mulching and botanical pesticide application, were scaled-up in a five-year district-level study, which found that farmers who had adopted the agroecological practices were significantly more likely than non-adopters to transition from food insecurity to food security during the study period (Kangmennaang et al. 2017).

### 3.11.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

Several studies found significant increases in crop yields through the implementation of agroecological practices. Farmers who planted fertilizer trees had maize yields 1.4 times greater (Beedy et al. 2013) and 57%

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Sources (in addition to the references below): http://www.fao.org/3/i9753en/i9753EN.pdf</footnote>
higher than a control group (Coulibaly et al. 2017). In two studies, intercropping legumes with maize resulted in increased overall crop yields, with farmers maintaining or improving maize yields while producing additional legume crops on the same area of land (Snapp et al. 2010, Snapp et al. 2018).

Increases in maize yield due to adoption of agroecological practices boosted farmers' potential crop sales and thus overall income. Adoption of fertilizer-trees was found to increase potential income from crop sales by 35% (Coulibaly et al. 2016), while intercropping pigeon pea, groundnuts, and maize resulted in the highest net income for farmers (Snapp et al. 2010, Snapp et al. 2018). In particular, semi-perennial legume rotations led to two times greater profits than maize monoculture (Snapp et al., 2018). In one study, farmers explained that legume crops had a higher market value than maize, leading to improved income (Nyantaki-Frimpong et al. 2016). In the nationally-representative survey, the one third of households who cultivated the highest number of crop species sold a greater proportion of their crops, thus earning more from agricultural sales (Jones et al. 2016). Farmers who implemented agroecological practices of crop diversification and soil management had significantly higher incomes after 3-5 years of adoption (Kangmennaang et al. 2017). Several studies found that agroecological practices reduced expenditure on food and agricultural inputs (Beedy et al. 2013, Conrad 2014), giving them greater financial stability. About 67% of adopters reported that they spent less money purchasing food, since they now grew a greater diversity and quantity of food products (Conrad 2014). In addition, in cash-strapped smallholder households, farmers deliberately use agroecological soil fertility management practices to avoid spending too much on fertilizer (Briggs and Moyo 2013).

Half of the selected articles reported that agroecological practices were implemented in tandem with low fertilizer usage, contributing to environmental benefits, as well as the aforementioned economic benefits (Myaka et al. 2006, Snapp et al. 2010, Beedy et al. 2013, Conrad 2014, Coulibaly et al. 2016, Snapp et al. 2018). Instead, farmers relied on legume nitrogen-fixation, incorporation of compost-manure, and crop residue management to improve soil fertility. Pigeon pea-maize intercropping added up to 60 kg/ha of nitrogen, with most of this left in the soil (Myaka et al. 2006); in the same system, there was a slight increase in soil carbon-but the brevity of the study meant that there were no significant findings regarding soil carbon. Compared to monoculture maize production, pigeon pea and/or groundnut-maize intercropping stabilized or increased soil organic matter (Snapp et al. 2010). Maize intercropping with annual and semi-perennial legumes also increased fertilizer efficiency significantly; compared to a maize monoculture, this cropping system produced greater overall crop yields with only one-quarter of the fertilizer (Snapp et al., 2018). This practice also led to increased vegetative cover of the soil during the year, reducing soil erosion.

Several articles found that the studied agroecological practices or agroecological interventions resulted in socio-cultural benefits. In some situations, the delivery of the intervention mattered for these social outcomes. For example, using a participatory, farmer-to-farmer approach, facilitated knowledge sharing between farmers and inclusion of marginalized groups, such as HIV-affected households and women (Nyantaki-Frimpong et al. 2016). Women preferred legume-maize intercropping to monoculture maize cultivation, which is significant as women are primarily responsible for growing nutritionally-valuable crops in Malawi (Snapp et al. 2018). A few studies examined the labour requirements of agroecological practices (Myaka et al. 2006, Briggs and Moyo 2012, Nyantaki-Frimpong et al. 2016, Snapp et al. 2018); all found that agroecology either reduced or maintained labour inputs. This was especially important for HIV-affected households, who found that legumes require less labour, and thus reduces the workload for family members occupied with seeking healthcare, caring for sick family members, and farming (Nyantaki-Frimpong et al. 2018).

**3.11.5 Level of promotion of agroecology in the country: Evidence from the literature**

A few articles described the context of agroecology in Malawi. The most pertinent policy is a government subsidy for legume crop seeds, although this initiative is relatively underfunded compared to the Fertilizer Input Subsidy Program (FISP) which provides farmers with vouchers for synthetic fertilizer and hybrid seeds and has been correlated with lower on-farm crop diversity. The majority of studies included in this brief were initiated by internationally-based research teams and research centers, although there is agroecological research performed by Malawian universities. Finally, there are a number of NGOs and community-based organizations that are actively promoting agroecology; the low-input and non-mechanized form of Malawian agriculture has made agroecology attractive for smallholder farmers with severe resource constraints.

**3.11.6 Conclusions**

Agroecological practices of legume intercropping, crop diversification, and soil management through agroforestry, crop rotations, crop residue incorporation and compost-manure amendments were effective for directly and indirectly improving household food security in Malawi. Studies documented how agroecological
practices improved crop yield, leading to higher income from crop sales, while reducing expenditure on agricultural inputs. Better soil health and fertilizer efficiency were documented environmental outcomes of adoption of agroecological practices. Diverse and marginalized groups benefited from the food security and economic outcomes of agroecology, in particular- women and HIV-affected households preferred agroecological practices and crops. Scientific evidence from longitudinal studies provided empirical information to gain an overview of agroecology in Malawi, capturing environmental, social, and economic aspects of adoption. More research on the implementation of several agroecological practices and expand to farm-level practices, such as livestock integration, would help to understand how practices studied individually can work synergistically.

### 3.11.7 Number of analysed documents

This brief is based on thirteen selected documents: two grey literature reports and eleven referenced articles, selected among the 122 papers initially retrieved through the protocol for literature review applied in this study.

### 3.11.8 References

#### Scientific papers

Beedy, T.L., Ajayi, O.C., Sileshi, G.W., Kundhlande, G., Chiundu G., Simons, A.J., 2013. Scaling up agroforestry to achieve food security and environmental protection among smallholder farmers in Malawi. Journal of field actions: Special Issue 7; Agroforestry for food security.

Bezner Kerr, R., Berti, P., Shumba, L. 2010. Effects of a participatory agriculture and nutrition education project on child growth in northern Malawi. Public Health Nutrition, 14(8), 1466-1472

Briggs, J., Moyo, B. (2012) The Resilience of Indigenous Knowledge in Small-scale African Agriculture: Key Drivers, Scottish Geographical Journal, 128:1, 64-80, DOI:10.1080/14702541.2012.694703

Coulibaly, J., Chiputwa, B., Nakelse, T., Kundhlande, G. 2017. Adoption of agroforestry and the impact on household food security among farmers in Malawi. Agricultural Systems: 155, 52-69.

Jones, AD. 2017. On-Farm Crop Species Richness Is Associated with Household Diet Diversity and Quality in Subsistence- and Market-Oriented Farming Households in Malawi. Journal of Nutrition. 147: 86-96.

Kangmennaang, J., Bezner Kerr, R., Lupafya, E., Dakishoni, L., Katundu, M., Luginaah, I. 2017. Impact of a participatory agroecological development project on household wealth and food security in Malawi. Food Security. 9:561-576

Kassie, M. Teklewold, H., Marenya, P., Jaleta, M., Erenstein, O. 2015. Production risks and food security under alternative technology choices in Malawi: Application of a multinomial endogenous switching regression. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66:3, 640-659.

Myaka., F., Sakala, W., Adu-Gyamfi, J., Kamalongo, D., Ngwira, A., Odgaard, R., Nielsen, N., Hogh-Jensen, H. 2006. Yields and accumulations of N and P in farmer-managed intercrops of maize-pigeonpea in semi-arid Africa. Plant Soil, 285: 207-220

Nyantaki-Frimpong, H., Mambulu, F., Bezner Kerr, R., Luginaah, I., Lupafya, E. 2016. Agroecology and sustainable food systems: Participatory research to improve food security among HIG-affected households in northern Malawi. Social Science and Medicine, 194: 89-99

Snapp, S., Blackie, M., Gilbert, R., Bezner Kerr, R., Kanyama-Phiri, G. 2010. Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 107(48): 20840-20845

Snapp, S., Grabowski, P., Chikowo, R., Smith, A., Anders, E., Sirrine, S., Chimonyo, V., Bekunda, M. 2018. Maize yield and profitability tradeoffs with social, human and environmental performance: Is sustainable intensification feasible? Agricultural Systems, 162: 77-88

#### Grey literature

Conrad, A. 2014. We are farmers: Agriculture, food security, and adaptive capacity among permaculture and conventional farmers in Central Malawi. American University, Department of Anthropology.

Oakland Institute. 2014. Agroforestry for Food Security. Oakland Institute.
## 3.12 Zimbabwe

### 3.12.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective<fnref n="17" />

Located in Southern Africa, Zimbabwe is a landlocked country, in which the agricultural sector provides employment and income for 60-70% of the population, however only contributes to roughly 17% of GDP. Overall, 33.3 million of the 39 million ha of total land area is used for agriculture. Farmers are subject to poor and declining soil fertility, insufficient and irregular rainfall with periodic drought, low investment, shortage of labour and electricity, lack of infrastructure, and limited access to irrigation.

Climate type varies by region, with a predominantly Humid Subtropical climate in the North and warm semi-arid in the South. The country has varying rainfall levels with alternating dry and rainy seasons.

Production by smallholder farmers accounts for 70% of staple foods, largely focusing on maize, sorghum, millet, and groundnuts. Cattle production is also widespread, as nearly 60% of rural households own cattle. Cotton, coffee, tea, and sugar are produced for export<fnref n="18" />.

Rural populations and smallholder farmers are largely impoverished and considered food insecure. Malnutrition due to lack of access to food and poor agricultural performance is widespread and has long lasting effects, particularly for children.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.12.2 Synthesis of agronomic practices

Analysed studies focused mainly on smallholder or family farms. However, several articles used a further grouping system based on the level of resource endowment of the farmers, developed by Mtambanengwe and Mapfumo (2005)<fnref n="19" />. Farming systems included conservation agriculture, various alternative methods for soil fertility and efficiency, organic production, urban farming, and a collection of agroecological practices. Practices investigated included planting basins, intercropping, crop rotation and diversification, reduced tillage, mulching and use of leguminous species, wastewater, and combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers for soil fertility. Three articles grouped several agroecological practices and reported on their cumulative effect, these practices included crop diversification, composting and compost use, agroforestry, water harvesting, mulching, integrated pest management, and livestock integration, these will be referred to as a collection of agroecological practices. One article looked at a post-harvest preservation technique, the use of diatomaceous earth on stored maize. Three articles were based on on-farm experiments while the remaining nine were based on interviews and farm sampling, with several being the result of interventions/ development projects. Details are explained in the coming paragraphs.

### 3.12.3 Links to food security

The relationship between agroecological practices and food security was discussed in seven out of the twelve articles; five reported positive effects, one reported a null effect and one reported a negative effect. In addition, one article discussed nutrient availability of a key micronutrient (Zinc), reporting null to positive results for utilizing leaf litter for mulch, drawing a link with nutrient security rather than food security (Manzeke et. al. 2012). Three of the twelve articles used defined indexes to assess food security. Makate et al. (2016) used the food consumption score (FCS), household food insecurity access score (HFIAS), and household dietary diversity score (HDDS) to assess the impact of crop diversification (intercropping and crop rotation) on food insecurity, finding the practice to have a positive impact on the FCS and HDDS indexes. In their research on urban agriculture in Harare, Kutiwa et. al. (2010) applied the HDDS to understand dietary diversity in the given population. The results indicate a positive correlation between the raising of livestock and household dietary diversity. Lastly, Mango et. al. (2017) used the FCS to evaluate the impact of conservation agriculture on food security, finding a negative correlation with adoption of practices of food security through a reduction in the FCS of participants. This was attributed to the small percentage of land devoted to conservation agriculture and inability to implement "*the full complement of practices necessary to set off the biophysical process that are*

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ http://www.fao.org/zimbabwe/fao-in-zimbabwe/zimbabwe-at-a-glance/en/</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/module-thirty-activity-one/</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Mtambanengwe, F., Mapfumo, P. (2005). Organic Matter Management as an Underlying Cause for Soil Fertility Gradients on Smallholder Farms in Zimbabwe. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 73(2), 227-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-005-2652-x</footnote>
expected to drive yield increases". Two additional articles used the number of daily meals consumed by participants as a method for assessment of practices on food security. One did not find a positive correlation with increased daily number of meals (United Nations Development Programme 2017) and the second a positive correlation but only in some regions and only when best conservation agriculture practice was applied (Hove and Gweme 2018). Two articles had no defined method of assessment, making associations between increased income as well as resilience to extreme weather events and increased food security (Stathers et. al. 2002, La Via Campesina 2016). Finally, four articles did not mention either food or nutrient security but rather focused on yields (Kanonge et. al. 2009, Mtambanengwe et. al. 2009, AFSA and Garden Africa 2016, Makate et. al. 2019).

Practices having a positive impact on food - and to some extent nutrition - security include crop diversification, wastewater use for soil fertility (as it is easily accessible, inexpensive, and increases yields and therefore income), and use of leaf litter mulch (for nutrient- Zinc availability) (Kutiwa et. al. 2010, Manzeke et. al. 2012, Makate et. al. 2016). Conservation agriculture practices also showed some positive results for food security through yield increase but only when the full set of practices could be implemented, which was often not the case (Mango et. al. 2017, Hove and Gweme 2018). However, Hove and Gweme (2018) found notable improvements in grain harvests from the women's conservation agriculture plots. During the years when poor rains were received these plots became the major food security plots for the families since nothing was harvested from conventional plots which only augmented during years with good rains.

Throughout different articles, a trend can be observed as lack of access to inputs, particularly for soil fertility management (manure, mineral fertilizer, leaf litter, etc.), is a major hindrance for food security.

### 3.12.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

In terms of productivity, the collection of agroecological practices increased maize yields for farmers using organic methods, reaching at the highest maximum the equivalent of 8 tons per ha, as compared to the national average of 850 kg per ha which was at below subsistence productivity levels in 2012 (AFSA and Garden Africa 2016). A study showed that combining organic and inorganic fertilizers led to an increase in maize and legume yields between 189-350% (Manseke et. al. 2012). In addition, this practice has yielded an increase in Zinc concentrations (with leaf litter and inorganic fertilizer), nearly doubling its concentration as compared to sole mineral fertilizer. Furthermore, the integration of leguminous species tends to only have significant impact on crop yield when combined with other practices (i.e. mulching with leaf litter, application of mineral Phosphorus, strategic crop rotations) (Kanonge et. al. 2009, Mtambanengwe et. al. 2009). A study on conservation agriculture reported an increase in maize yield from 0.53 MT to 0.97 MT (Hove and Gweme 2018). However, labour and time restraints were a hindering factor for successful adoption of conservation agriculture practices, especially for women who often have other responsibilities aside from farming, and therefore these results varied.

Combining agroecological practices appeared to have a positive economic impact. Under a United Nations Development Programme (2017), the adoption of various agroecological practices (e.g. conservation agriculture, crop diversification, agroforestry, composting and compost use, water harvesting, integrated pest management, and livestock integration) generated sales worth US$167,908 at local markets. Another program integrating agroecological practices resulted in a 265% increase in farmer income for its 591 participants by the final phase of the program, with US$132,000 worth of sales by participants (AFSA and Garden Africa 2016). This increase was partly attributed to the ability of selling products at higher prices under an organic label. However, it is noted that the higher prices for organic products is dependent on the market. The use of diatomaceous earths for post-harvest preservation increased the value of maize and sorghum as compared to typical grain preservation techniques through effective repellence of insects and rot, among other parameters (Stathers et. al. 2002).

Environmental benefits of the different agroecological practices are numerous. A study concluded that conservation agriculture improves soil fertility, soil moisture conservation and soil temperature regulation (Makate et. al. 2018). A scientific study on crop diversification found that this practice increases the potential to harbour biodiversity, which is beneficial for pest, disease, and weed management (Makate et. al. 2016). In addition, the integration of indigenous crops can contribute to the preservation of local biodiversity (Makate et. al. 2016). Collectively agroecological practices improved soil moisture and biodiversity conservation (United Nations Development Programme 2017). For example, one study found an increase in agrobiodiversity by 122% after 18 months (AFSA and Garden Africa 2016). Moreover, practices that focus on building soil organic matter and augmenting organic fertilizers reduced the potential for nitrate leaching when compared to inorganic fertilizer (La Via Campesina 2016).
In terms of social impacts, a study focusing on women and adoption of conservation agriculture concluded that participants felt more confident and respected after partaking in a training program (Hove and Gweme 2018).

**3.12.5 Level of promotion of agroecology in the country: evidence from literature**

There was no mention of government policy supporting agroecology in the selected literature. However, the existence of extension services and consortium initiatives (ie. Soil Fertility Consortium of Southern Africa) showed positive effects on the adoption of some agroecological practices; for example, adoption of crop diversification was seen to increase by 38% due to extension service access, and similar trends were seen for leguminous species integration and combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers (Manseke et. al. 2012, Makate et. al. 2016). One farmer field school, the Shashe Agroecology School, founded for the promotion of agroecological practices showed potential for positive impact on practice adoption of smallholder farmers (La Via Campesina 2016). Otherwise, agroecological practices appear to be largely promoted by NGOs or international development agencies through training programs.

**3.12.6 Conclusions**

The state of agroecology in Zimbabwe appears to be fragmented with a few cases showing potential for agroecological practices to address food insecurity. However, generally there is a lack of data, use of food security indexes, and literature on the topic. Within the literature reviewed, there were several trends that spanned across the different practices, for instance soil fertility and the build-up of soil organic matter were important areas of focus. Access to inputs and resource endowment also appear to be highly influential factors for successful implementation, particularly for those related to soil fertility. Lastly, combining agroecological practices appears to yield better results. In conclusion, results from the literature are very promising, but more research is needed to clearly connect agroecological practices and food security in Zimbabwe.

**3.12.7 Number of analysed articles**

The search for scientific articles for Zimbabwe yielded adequate results for number of articles available. The application of the protocol for literature review used in this study, returned 169 articles. Additionally, three relevant scientific articles were found outside of the search protocol. In total, 9 articles were selected to compile this brief. For grey literature, 5 relevant articles were identified, of which 3 were used for this brief.

**3.12.8 References**

**Scientific Papers**

Hove, M., Gweme, T. (2018). Women's food security and conservation farming in Zaka District-Zimbabwe. Journal of Arid Environments, 149, 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.10.010

Kanonge, G., Nezomba, H., Chikowo, R., Mtambanengwe, F., Mapfumo, P. (2009). Assessing the potential benefits of organic and mineral fertiliser combinations on legume productivity under smallholder management in Zimbabwe. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 32(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2015.1053156

Kutiwa, S., Boon, E., & Devuyst, D. (2010). Urban Agriculture in Low Income Households of Harare: An Adaptive Response to Economic Crisis. Journal of Human Ecology, 32(2), 85-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2010.11906325

Makate, C., Wang, R., Makate, M., Mango, N. (2016). Crop diversification and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe: Adaptive management for environmental change. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2802-4

Makate, C., Makate, M., Mango, N., Siziba, S. (2019). Increasing resilience of smallholder farmers to climate change through multiple adoption of proven climate-smart agriculture innovations. Lessons from Southern Africa | Elsevier Enhanced Reader. Journal of Environmental Management, 231, 858-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.069

Mango, N., Siziba, S., Makate, C. (2017). The impact of adoption of conservation agriculture on smallholder farmers' food security in semi-arid zones of southern Africa. Agriculture and Food Security, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0109-5
Manzeke, G., Mapfumo, P., Mtambanengwe, F., Chikowo, R., Tendayi, T., Cakmak, I. (2012). Soil fertility management effects on maize productivity and grain zinc content in smallholder farming systems of Zimbabwe. Plant and Soil, 361(1-2), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1332-2

Mtambanengwe, F., & Mapfumo, P. (2009). Combating food insecurity on sandy soils in Zimbabwe: The legume challenge. Symbiosis, 48(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03179982

Stathers, T. E., Chigariro, J., Mudiwa, M., Mvumi, B. M., Golob, P. (2002). Small-scale farmer perceptions of diatomaceous earth products as potential stored grain protectants in Zimbabwe. Crop Protection, 21(10), 1049–1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(02)00089-3

**Grey Literature**

Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) and Garden Africa (2016). Agroecology for home and market: A winning combination for rural communities in Mashonaland East, Zimbabwe. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-be864e.pdf

La Via Campesina Africa (2016). Shashe Agroecology School: A true centre of Agroecology and practical food Sovereignty. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl921e.pdf

United Nations Development Programme (2017). Community Approaches to Sustainable Land Management and Agroecology Practices. Retrieved from https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/publications/SGP-Agroecology%20Publication-Digital.pdf

**Other Literature**

Module Thirty, Activity One – Exploring Africa. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2019, from http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/module-thirty-activity-one/
## 3.13 Madagascar

### 3.13.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective<fnref n="20" />

Madagascar is the fourth largest island in the world. It is located off the coast of Mozambique in South-East Africa. It is comprised of tropical climates along the coast, temperate, mountainous regions inland, and arid conditions in the south. It has a population of more than 25 million people that is growing at an estimated 2.5% per year. The island is known for its unique biodiversity, of which 90% of all species are endemic.

Its agricultural sector is characterized by its major staple crops: rice, cassava, beans, groundnuts and bananas. Agricultural productivity and food security are challenged by erosion and soil degradation, desertification, wildfires, water pollution, drought and natural disasters such as cyclones and locust infestations.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.13.2 Synthesis of agronomic practices

Agri-food systems covered in the literature included family farming, entrepreneurial enterprises, agroforestry systems, livestock systems (including integrated systems), and aquaculture. All of the systems are considered to be extensive, or in a few cases intensive. Agroecological practices included: composting; integration of trees; system of rice intensification (SRI); crop rotation; cover cropping (seasonal + semi-permanent); organic fertilization; crop diversification; integration of livestock; use of grass strips; and integration of fish within rice paddy systems. None of the reviewed literature detail post-harvest practices. Factors influencing farmers and other stakeholders to adopt various agroecological practices include: climate change; low yields; low or no access to inputs; low availability of arable land; soil infertility; soil erosion and degradation; high labour requirements; and low incomes.

### 3.13.3 Links to food security

The contribution of agroecological practices to food and nutrition security was assessed indirectly on a household level. Many articles reported indirect positive contributions at the household level (Razafimbelo et al. 2018, Violas et al. 2018; Randrianarison et al. 2017; Rerolle and Andriamampionona, 2017, ADRA 2016) as the implementation of certain practices led to increased income, yield and/or food availability.

### 3.13.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

The literature provided minimal data (quantitative or qualitative) regarding productivity indicators. Those that did offer data showed productivity increases through yield (Violas et al. 2018, Naudin et al. 2018, Rerolle and Andriamampionona 2017). Two studies showed that farmers who had implemented the practice of SRI observed average rice yields increasing from 2 t/ha to 5 t/ha (Dupin 2011, Rakotovao et al. 2017). In one study, farmers saw their vegetable (unspecified types) yields increase by 1 t/ha when using composted manure mixed with other organic matter as opposed to simple manure in their fields (Naudin et al. 2018). An action research experience dealing with planting of Cassava in the south of Madagascar, reported an important yield increase using compost and ridging with draught power to reduce the workload of this agroecological practice (Rerolle and Andriamampionona 2017).

In semi-arid area (Region of Androy) agroecological sites, based on Cajanus cajan cultivation, have increased from 457 ha in 2014 to 2.434 ha in 2018 (Violas et al. 2018) (note: 4.395 ha in 2019). This agroforestry approach permits a great environmental and nutritional impact by: (i) decreasing soil erosion due to heavy rain and strong wind, (ii) increasing soil fertility (mulch, nitrogen), (iii) reducing logging by providing fuelwood, (iv) increasing biodiversity and (v) increasing food availability thanks to Cajanus cajan grains harvested two times a year.

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Sources (in addition to those below)
Image from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6701154
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ma.html
https://www.wfp.org/countries/madagascar</footnote>