Re-imagining disruptive and reverse extension of fertilizer tree agroforestry in Malawi
Bruce Sosola, Isaac Nyoka and Aston Mulwafu(World Agroforestry Centre)
A discussion paper presented at the 2015 Malawi Forum on Agricultural Advisory Services, ICT Extension Week at the Malawi Institute of Malawi
1.0 Introduction
• Word Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) –Consultative Group in International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) –research for development (R4D) in
agroforestry systems–Works with national research and
extension systems (NARES)
2.0 Key underlying NR based problems facing agriculture
• Inherent soil infertility• loss of soil nutrients from erosion
and leaching• Deforestation• Climate change (weather variability)
3.0 Product Description
• Fertiliser tree agroforestry (FTA) systems have the potential to address the challenges of declining soil fertility and improve food security.
• FTA enhances resilience of farming systems to climate and weather variability
4.0 Scaling up investment platform
• Agroforestry Food Security Programme (AFSP)–Financed by Ireland and Flanders–Markets tree based portfolios • Fertilizer, Fodder bank, Fruit, Fuelwood
–Adoption=efficiency of extension*farmer factor
5.0 The theory of change
• Going beyond on-farm demonstration and on-station trials.• Agricultural development is
incomplete without innovative extension.–Disruptive extension–Reverse extension
R4D diamond-chain model
Technical Extension Efficiency
FTA Chemical Fertilizer0
20
40
60
80
100
120
83
97
45
78
KnowUse
Technical Agronomic efficiency
Technical Agronomic efficiency
Biological Nitrogen Fixation Capacities
Fertilizer TreeAmount of N2-fixed (kg N/ha)
Cowpea 35Groundnut 33Cajanus cajan 50Tephrosia vogelii 157Gliricidia sepium 212Sesbania sesban 84
6.0 Low adoption challenges
• Long gestation periods to benefits (two-three years)
• Roaming livestock and harmful bushfires• Access to high quality planting materials• Lack of appreciation of the efficacy of FTA• Inadequate extension approaches– Low return on extension investment– social marketing approaches
7.0 Moving Forward
• Disruptive extension– Marketing based extension (cellphone analogy)– Product development (need based)
• Embedded FISP• ICT based
• Reverse extension– Urban-rural remittances– urban based extension– “Value for many’ versus ‘value for money”– By-law development (Council and community)
Some afterthoughts
• Girl child education– Reduced pressure on extension personnel– Enhanced nutrition transformation– Enhanced household resilience
• Increased ICT/extension budgeting in development programmes– More value for money
• “Celebrity” based extension– Pastors, traditional leaders, teachers, nurses– Ambassadors of change
8.0 Take home message
• Extension without adoption of the technology in question by the customers is both carelessness and misfortune. Research
Extension
Adoption