A presentation by Barbara Adolph, a principal researcher in the Natural Resources research group for the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), on the sustainable intensification of smallholder agriculture in Africa. Adolph's work explores the challenges and priorities of achieving food security as well as other socioeconomic and environmental objectives in small-scale agricultural systems. The presentation is part of IIED's SITAM (Supporting smallholder farmers’ decision-making: managing trade-offs and synergies for sustainable intensification) project. More details: https://www.iied.org/sustainable-intensification-agriculture

1. www.iied.org @IIED
Barbara Adolph, IIED
(Barbara.adolph@iied.org)
Sustainable intensification trade-offs inAfrican
smallholder agriculture:
Main findings from the SITAM project

2. Barbara Adolph
Outline
1. SITAM – aims, objectives, project set-up
2. Trade-offs in SAI (Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture)
3. Research approach and methods
4. Main findings and outcomes
5. Main recommendations
6. Lessons learnt

3. 1. Objectives and project set-up

4. Barbara Adolph
SITAM research question
How do smallholder farmers
manage the trade-offs between
production, sustainability, and
other socioeconomic
and environmental
factors?

5. Barbara Adolph
Project set-up
• Funder: DFID via the SAIRLA programme: Sustainable Agricultural Intensification
Research and Learning in Africa
• Duration: May 2016 to March 2020
• Budget: £702,000
• Partners:
• Lead: IIED, UK
• Groundswell International, USA
• Wageningen University, Farming Systems Ecology Group (the Netherlands)
• Practical Action Consulting, Mali / UK
• LUANAR (Lilongwe University of Agriculture & Natural Resources), Malawi (until mid-2018)
• TLC (Total Land Care), Malawi
• INERA (Institut de l’environnement et de recherches agricoles), Burkina Faso
• ANSD (Agence Nourrir sans Détruire), Burkina Faso
• UDS (University for Development Studies), Ghana
• CIKOD (Centre for Indigenous Knowledge and Organisational Development), Ghana

6. Barbara Adolph
SAIRLA PROGRAMME MANAGING CONSORTIUM
DFID
£
SAIRLA programme (Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Research and Learning in Africa)
WYG = programme director and grant
manager, dealing with finances / delivery
/ value for money etc.
NRI (Natural Resources Institute, University
of Greenwich) = research director, dealing
with technical content, M&E, learning alliances
8 research projects on
equity, trade-offs and
agricultural services
5 national learning
alliances (Ghana, Tanzania,
Ethiopia, Zambia, Malawi)
International
Learning Alliance
(ILA)

7. Barbara Adolph
Ghana:
Tanchara (Nandom)
and Ko (Lawra),
Upper West Region
Research sites
Malawi:
Mgombe and Chikango,
Mwansambo EPA,
Nkhotakota District
Burkina:
Bolontou (Tibga, Gourma) and
Pognankanré (Bilanga,
Gnagna), Eastern Region

8. 2. Trade-offs in SAI

9. Barbara Adolph
Sustainable agricultural intensification
“Producing more with less” (resources and environmental &
social impact) – to feed the growing millions in urban and rural
areas
http://ag4impact.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/07/Infographic.jpg

10. Barbara Adolph
SAI in IIED

11. Barbara Adolph
Trade-offs and synergies
In contrast, synergy is interaction or cooperation of two or more
organisations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect
greater than the sum of their separate effects. Synergies occur when a
change leads to desirable outcomes for multiple indicators.
A trade-off is a situation in which one balances two opposing situations or
qualities; a balance is achieved between two desirable but incompatible
objectives. This balance is a compromise, because the two situations or
features cannot both be maximised (trade-off in French is compromis)

12. Barbara Adolph
Trade-offs and synergies in agricultural systems
Source: Piet van Asten,
Peter Läderach, Jim
Gockowski, Laurence
Jassogne (2012):
Agricultural intensification
for climate change
adaptation and mitigation:
synergies and tradeoffs.
https://www.slideshare.net/
cgiarclimate/b1-synergies-
andtradeoffsinccadaptation
andmitigationpeterladerach

13. Barbara Adolph
Trade-off management as Pareto optimality
Pareto optimality is a
situation where no
individual or preference
criterion can be better off
without making at least one
individual or preference
criterion worse off.

14. Barbara Adolph
Trade-off dimensions
Category Decision Example trade-off Potential synergy
Within a domain Land allocation Legumes v maize Intercropping increases harvest
for both
Across domains Crop residues Fodder v soil fertility Integrated system with effective
manure use
Level of input use Production v pollution Fertiliser stimulates improved soil
carbon cycling
Across spatial
scales
Land use – intensification or
extensification
Farm-level profitability can lead to
landscape level habitat loss via
agricultural expansion
Investing in diversified agriculture
expands habitat (land sharing)
Across time Time preference in soil
management
Immediate gain and long-term loss
v short-term loss and long-term
gain
Multipurpose legumes for food,
fodder, fuel, income and / or soil
fertility
Across types of
farmers
Community grazing norms
during dry season
Crop growers control residues v
herders with free access
Manure from herders enriches
soils of farmers
Source: Musumba, M, Grabowski, P, Palm, C and Snapp, S (2017) Guide for the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework. Washington,
USAID (Feed the Future).

15. Barbara Adolph
Understanding farmers’perceptions of trade-offs in SAI –
why does it matter?
 Trade-offs and synergies exist and need to be managed
 Farmers’ perceptions and priorities influence what choices they
make and how they react to interventions
 Different types of farmers perceive objectives and trade-offs
differently and have different options of addressing them
 Agricultural services, policies and investments need to support
farmers in addressing trade-offs in a way that takes the
perceptions and constraints of different types of farmers into
account

16. Barbara Adolph
More on trade-off management!

17. 3. Research approach and methods

18. Barbara Adolph
Research process
Livelihoods analysis
(secondary data
review)
• Understanding the
context
Defining SIA indicators,
household questionnaire
survey
• Quantifying key
parameters
• Selecting households
for case study
Household case
studies and
community validation
• Understanding farmers’
choices and their
drivers
• Developing
recommendations
Stakeholder analysis,
baseline interviews
• Understanding our
audience and those
we want to influence
Participation in NLA
and ILA; stakeholder
engagement
• Engaging with our
audience and peers
• Local and national
level communication
Producing final
communication outputs
/ sharing findings
• Communicating our
results, changing
knowledge and
attitudes

19. Barbara Adolph
1. Total number of crops grown on the farm (all plots)
2. Total monetary value of all crops produced during the last season (all plots – value
calculated based on farm gate prices)
3. Average monetary value of crops produced per ha across all plots
4. Type of seed used on the farm (local, improved, hybrid) for priority crops – average
across priority crops
5. Number of income sources in the household per adult household member
6. Number of bicycles per adult household member
7. Number of mobile phones per adult household member
8. Total number of livestock in TLU (Tropical Livestock Units)
ECONOMIC SAI indicators

20. Barbara Adolph
1. Total farm size (all plots)
2. Changes in farm size since 5 years ago (increase, no change / fluctuation, decrease)
3. Proportion of the whole farm that is compound farm
4. Years plots have been continuously cultivated (weighted by plot size)
5. Degree of mechanisation (method used for land preparation - manual, animal traction,
tractor) weighed by plot size
6. Diversification: Average number of crops per plot
7. Inorganic fertiliser used last season in kg/ha
8. Proportion of farm land (all plots) on which manure was applied
9. Proportion of farm land (all plots) where different SWC methods were used (boundary
bunds / tied ridges, mounds / ridges, zero / minimum tillage / mulching, FMNR)
ENVIRONMENTAL SAI indicators

21. Barbara Adolph
SOCIAL SAI indicators
1. Household size
2. Dependency ratio (number of children below the age of 15 per adult)
3. Education: Average number of years of schooling per household
member above 13 years
4. Group membership: Average number of groups that household
members are a member per adult household member (above 13
years)
5. Number of months the household can feed itself from own
production

22. Barbara Adolph
Principle component analysis (PCA) of SAI indicators
Plotting of households by
principle component
environmental and economic
indicators, to select case study
households
Source: Sam Barrett, IIED

23. Barbara Adolph
PCA analysis of SAI indicators
Plotting of households by
principle component
environmental and economic
indicators to select case study
households
Source: Sam Barrett, IIED

24. Barbara Adolph
PCA analysis of SAI indicators
Plotting of households by
principle component
environmental and economic
indicators to select case study
households
Source: Sam Barrett, IIED

25. Barbara Adolph
Qualitative phase / household case studies
• 8 (Malawi) to 12 (Burkina
and Ghana) households
per country
• PLA exercises: individual,
focus group and
community level (for
validation)
• “Deep dive” into farmers’
strategies, priorities,
practic4es and decisions
Exercise Who
Phase 1 – Setting the scene
P1.1 Community feedback on main findings of the quantitative survey community
P1.2 Community analysis of key findings with respect to SAI community
Phase 2 – Community context and trends
P2.1 Village physical map community
P2.2 Trends in community environmental resources community
P2.3 History and sources of agricultural technical services and inputs community
P2.4 Community feedback on trends and influences on farming systems community
Phase 3 – Present and future farming system
P3.1 Household history (timeline) household
P3.2 Household farm map and production trends household
P3.3 Assessment of the present farming system from a SAI perspective household
Phase 4 – Food security, income and interventions
P4.1 Farming system history and change household
P4.2 Household history of engagement with agricultural services and access to inputs household
P4.3 Trends in household food security household
P4.4 Trends in farm household income and loans household
P4.5 Household case study – feedback session community
Phase 5 – farm operations, coping mechanisms and key decisions
P5.1 Record and assess major farm operations by plot (3 visits over one season) Household
P5.2 Monitoring of coping mechanisms to address hunger during the lean season (3 visits
during the year)
household
P5.3 Household assessment of farming decisions and trade-offs household
Phase 6 – Enabling / disabling factors and recommendations
P6.1 Focus group discussion on enabling/-disabling factors to manage trade-offs community
P6.2 Feedback session, validation of findings and recommendations community

26. Barbara Adolph
Case study research questions
1. Farmers’ awareness and perceptions: Are (different types of) farmers aware
of the existence of trade-offs and synergies in relation to sustainable
intensification of agriculture? If yes, what is their perception?
2. Types of trade-offs experienced: What trade-offs are (different types of)
farmers faced with (or have been faced with in the past)? How have these
changed over time? What new trade-offs may be emerging?
3. Managing trade-offs: What are (different types of) farmers currently doing to
‘manage’ trade-offs? How are these strategies influenced by policies and
institutions (village level institutions/local by-laws, cultural values, regional and
national agricultural policies and programmes)?

27. Barbara Adolph
Malawi case study households

28. 4. Main findings

29. Barbara Adolph
Farm households vary significantly, even in
the same village / hamlet, e.g. in terms of:
• Household size and composition
• Farm size and farm characteristics
• Off-farm income sources
• Assets and implements
• Human and social capital – including
farming skills, social networks etc.
30
4.1 Different assets, different strategies & priorities

30. Barbara Adolph
Farm households vary significantly, even in
the same village / hamlet, e.g. in terms of:
• Household size and composition
• Farm size and farm characteristics
• Off-farm income sources
• Assets and implements
• Human and social capital – including
farming skills, social networks etc.
31
4.1 Different assets, different strategies & priorities
Household assets influence their priorities, and their abilities to implement SAI strategies.

31. Barbara Adolph
Farm households vary significantly, even in
the same village / hamlet, e.g. in terms of:
• Household size and composition
• Farm size and farm characteristics
• Off-farm income sources
• Assets and implements
• Human and social capital – including
farming skills, social networks etc.
32
4.1 Different assets, different strategies & priorities
Household assets influence their priorities, and their abilities to implement SAI strategies.

32. Barbara Adolph
Farm households vary significantly, even in
the same village / hamlet, e.g. in terms of:
• Household size and composition
• Farm size and farm characteristics
• Off-farm income sources
• Assets and implements
• Human and social capital – including
farming skills, social networks etc.
33
4.1 Different assets, different strategies & priorities
Household assets influence their priorities, and their abilities to implement SAI strategies.
Social context and local institutions influence priorities, but not always in a SAI direction
(differences between West Africa and Malawi in strength of biocultural values)

33. Barbara Adolph
4.1 Differences between two households: Ghana
HOUSEHOLD A:
established and older
HOUSEHOLD B:
young and resource-poor
LEGEND
AGE

34. Barbara Adolph
4.1 Differences between two households: Burkina
1. Éducation 2 .Occupation 3. Groupements Clé pour âge et sexe
4. Biens 5. Stratégies de survie 6. Sécurité alimentaire
1. Éducation 2 .Occupation 3. Groupements Clé pour âge et sexe
4. Biens 5. Stratégies de survie 6. Sécurité alimentaire

35. Barbara Adolph
4.1 Differences in coping strategies: Malawi

36. Barbara Adolph
4.2 SAI trade-offs experienced by households:
decisions
1. Intensive vs extensive land use (use more labour and inputs on a smaller plot or less labour and
inputs on a larger plot)
2. Grow crops for cash vs crops for hh consumption
3. Grow improved vs local crop varieties
4. Land preparation by tractor, animal traction or manually
5. Use of organic vs inorganic fertilisers
6. Use of herbicides vs manual weeding
7. Management of crop residues ― use for composting/mulching vs for livestock vs for household use
(fencing, fuel) vs burning
8. Invest own labour in own farm (for soil and water conservation ― SWC, soil fertility management ―
SFM) vs in off-farm activities
9. Invest in education vs invest in farming
10.Irrigation benefits for the individual vs collective benefits from sustainable management of streams
and banks

37. Barbara Adolph
4.2 SAI trade-offs experienced by households:
underlying objectives
SOCial, ENVironmental or
ECOnomic Objectives
Found in*
Preferred option for this objective
BF G M
Decision: Intensive vs extensive land use (use more labour and inputs on a smaller plot or less labour and
inputs on a larger plot)
O1: Increase production for food
security and income – ECO (SOC)
   Depends on context (labour and capital availability) and
existing level of intensification. Intensification is normally the
preferred option until thresholds of labour and capital use are
reached.
O2: Save labour – ECO (SOC)   
O3: Earn an income from farming –
ECO
  
O4: Reduce expenses / capital inputs
- ECO
  
O5: Ensure access to grazing lands
for livestock - ECO
   Intensification
O6: Ensure access to forests for fuel,
fodder, fruits, etc – ECO (SOC, ENV)
   Intensification

38. Barbara Adolph
4.2 SAI trade-offs experienced by households:
underlying objectives
SOCial, ENVironmental or
ECOnomic Objectives
Found in*
Preferred option for this objective
BF G M
Decision: Invest own labour in own farm (for soil and water conservation ― SWC, soil fertility
management ― SFM) vs in off-farm activities
O1: Increase food security in the
short term
   Both (but depends on context)
O2: Increase income in the short
term
   Off-farm work
O3: Reduce risk    Both
O4: Increase productivity in the
long term
   Own farm

39. Barbara Adolph
4.3 SAI trade-offs management
• The dominant trade-off management strategy was to compromise – achieve competing objectives to
a lesser extent. Examples:
• Growing local AND improved crop varieties
• Use compost / manure AND inorganic fertiliser
• Use herbicides, but try to manage negative impacts (not interfere with objectives of others)
• Environment – economic trade-offs almost always had a time dimension attached:
• Short term economic benefits (accompanied by some environmental losses, and long-term economic losses)
• vs short term investment (economic loss) to achieve longer term economic and environmental gains
• High level of farmers’ awareness of environmental and social dimensions of trade-offs – but perceived
inability to address these due to resource constraints. Farmers perhaps more aware of trade-offs than
development agencies and government…?
• Smallholder farmers in the study areas do not want to “step out” – livelihood diversification is the
norm even where farmers are net food buyers (as well as cash crop sellers).

40. Barbara Adolph
4.3 SAI synergies
• Many examples of synergies – mutually supportive actions:
• Using crop residues as livestock fodder, then use manure (multiple benefits)
• Combine off-season migration with investments in agriculture
• Practicing Farmer-Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) supports multiple objectives
(fuel and fodder production, micro-climate regulation, groundwater recharge, soil
conservation…)
• But do promoters of agroecological intensification overestimate
synergies…?
• Currently no explicit support from NGOs, govt or private sector to increase
synergies (because of limited range of objectives) or overcome trade-offs.

41. 5. Recommendations

42. Barbara Adolph
National agricultural policy and its implementation
1. Reflect a recognition of farm household diversity in agricultural development plans –
basket of options rather than one size fits all
2. Redirect agricultural subsidies and advisory services towards strategies that support
the transition towards more sustainable agricultural practices
• Implements for soil organic matter and soil conservation instead of fertiliser;
• Incremental improvements to land management instead of ‘rolling out’ of interventions
• Loans for investments in land
3. Support effective farmer organisational development to explicitly support SAI
transitions
4. Improve oversight of agro-input dealers and enforce ban on toxic agrochemicals
5. Coordinate and harmonise interventions (Rwanda style…? – but has challenges…)

43. Barbara Adolph
Donors and development agencies
1. Support design and implementation of enabling agricultural policies – not just on
paper. Recognise that it’s more complicated than “stepping up, hanging in, stepping
out”…
2. Use funds to invest where private sector doesn’t: farmer organisational capacity
development, support for a shift towards long-term sustainable practices (food/
money for work – Yatenga example?)
3. Acknowledge interrelationship between agricultural and livelihood strategies – and
reflect in holistic project design (systems perspective)
4. Design programmes that provide baskets of options and scope for experimentation
and local innovation – not one size fits all
5. Put farmers, not ideologies, at the centre (bottom-up design of interventions, starting
with local development plans)

44. 6. Lessons learnt

45. Barbara Adolph
Project design and implementation

• Programme design was innovative, with social
learning via projects, NLAs and ILA
• Focus on household level decision-making was
interesting – not many chances to do longitudinal
studies
• Capable, motivated partners – put in a lot of extra time
• Country-wise NGO - research organisation team-up
was good for capacity development and social
learning
• Good South-South learning, in particular between
Malawi and West Africa.
• Face-to-face workshops proved critical for pulling
together the team, motivating them and making
progress together
• Co-funding via Afrialliance project – increased project
visibility

• Design overall too ambitious – too many research steps and
deliverables, making project very output driven and leaving not enough
time for meaningful stakeholder engagement at national level
• In addition, donor reduced our budget by 7% before start – without
reducing the scope of work. We should have negotiated reduced scope
at that stage.
• Too many partners for a relatively small budget – which contributed
to…
• …high staff turnover (Malawi) and work for other projects competing
with SITAM
• SAIRLA required a lot of administration (and we did not budget for that)
• Some information/data collected was not fully analysed (shortage of
time and skills) – but we are planning to make the data openly
accessible via ReShare
• Burkina NLA was stopped – resulting in low national-level policy
engagement in Burkina

46. Barbara Adolph
Project legacy

• Partners are using findings for project design
and advocacy
• Partners’ capacity to design and implement
research has increased – in some cases
significantly. Perhaps this was the main
outcome…?
• Good local/regional policy engagement, in
particular in Ghana and Burkina
• Follow-up: OIEau incubators – under discussion
• IIED: learning from SITAM contributed to
Sentinel design
• IIED comms: Good collection of material on SAI

• Fairly limited national level policy impact – partners
too far removed from national level debates

47. Barbara Adolph
Further reading and viewing
https://www.iied.org/sustainable-
intensification-agriculture
… and videos to come from
Ghana and Malawi!