Priority  of  Type  II  is  not  in  food  consump3on  but  in  maintaining  

income:  although  less  food  secure,  it  is  less  vulnerable  

Linking  agricultural  adapta/on  strategies  and  food  security:  evidence  from  West  Africa    

S.   Douxchamps,  M.T.   Van  Wijk,   S.   Silvestri,   A.S.  Moussa,   C.  Quiros,  N.Y.B.   Ndour,   S.   Buah,   L.   Somé,   M.   Herrero,   P.   Kristjanson,   M.  Ouedraogo,  P.K.  Thornton,  P.  Van  Asten,  R.  Zougmoré,  M.C.  Rufino  

aims  

metho

ds  

results  

conclusion

s  

0

20

40

60

80

100Labour  force

Productiveassets

Domesticassets

Off  farmincome

Net  income

Marketorientation

Total  area

Livestockassets

Incomesources

Landproductivity

Type  I

Type  II

Type  III

Type  IV

0

20

40

60

80

100SWC

Smallruminants

Trees

VegetablesDiversity

Fertilizers

Improvedvarieties

Type  I Type  II Type  III Type  IV

0

20

40

60

80

100SWC

Smallruminants

Trees

VegetablesDiversity

Fertilizers

Improvedvarieties

(a) (b) (c)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Energy  produ

ced  (M

j/ha)

Intensity  of  CAS  practices

Type  I

Type  II

Type  III

Type  IV

none                      50%  decrease current 50%  increase 100%  increase0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Energy  produ

ced  (M

j/ha)

Intensity  of  CAS  practices

Type  I

Type  II

Type  III

Type  IV

average  energy  needed  to  have  100%  of  food  secure

Land

 produ

ctivity

(MJ/ha)

Intensity  of  practice  of  adaptation  strategies

▪  low  adapOve  capacity  and  high  exposure  to  natural  and  anthropogenic  threats  ▪  adaptaOon  strategies  are  widely  promoted,  their  impact  on  food  security  is  unknown.  

▪  to  define  food  secure  and  food  insecure  household  profiles    ▪  to  assess  the  current  levels  of  adopOon  of  adaptaOon  strategies  at  household  level  and  idenOfy  the  drivers  of  adopOon    ▪  to  assess  the  impact  of  adaptaOon  strategies  on  household  level  food  security  and  land  producOvity  

adap

ta/o

n  strategies  

▪  soil  and  water  conservaOon  ▪  agroforestry  ▪  small  ruminants  ▪  crop  diversity  ▪  dry  season  vegetable  producOon  ▪  improved  crop  varieOes  ▪  mineral  ferOlizer  

▪  household  survey:  200  households  per  site,  3  sites  ▪  ‘IMPACTlite’  survey  methodology  and  quesOonnaire  

▪  four  household  types:  

▪    no  one-­‐size-­‐fits-­‐all  solu/ons:  different  farm  types  =  different  ‘climate-­‐smart’  adapta/on  strategies    ▪    farm  typology  =  a  good  entry  point  to  analyse  which  prac/ces  should  be  targeted  to  which  type  of  farmers    ▪    quan/fica/on  of  the  effect  of  adapta/on  strategies  on  household  food  security  →  scale  out  prac/ces  to  reduce  vulnerability  

▪  adopOon  of  adaptaOon  strategies  can  improve  the  food  security  status  of  some  household  types,  but  not  all:  

I  Subsistence  

II    Diversified  

III  Extensive  

IV  Intensified  

Food  security   26  %   34  %   55  %   60  %  

Land  area  per  cap.   small   small   large   large  

Market  orientaOon   low   high   low   high  

0

20

40

60

80

100Labour  force

Productiveassets

Domesticassets

Off  farmincome

Net  income

Marketorientation

Total  area

Livestockassets

Incomesources

Landproductivity

Type  I

Type  II

Type  III

Type  IV

0

20

40

60

80

100SWC

Smallruminants

Trees

VegetablesDiversity

Fertilizers

Improvedvarieties

Type  I Type  II Type  III Type  IV

0

20

40

60

80

100SWC

Smallruminants

Trees

VegetablesDiversity

Fertilizers

Improvedvarieties

(a) (b) (c)

0

20

40

60

80

100Labour  force

Productiveassets

Domesticassets

Off  farmincome

Net  income

Marketorientation

Total  area

Livestockassets

Incomesources

Landproductivity

Type  I

Type  II

Type  III

Type  IV

0

20

40

60

80

100SWC

Smallruminants

Trees

VegetablesDiversity

Fertilizers

Improvedvarieties

Type  I Type  II Type  III Type  IV

0

20

40

60

80

100SWC

Smallruminants

Trees

VegetablesDiversity

Fertilizers

Improvedvarieties

(a) (b) (c)▪  characterisOcs  and  intensity  of  pracOce  of  adaptaOon  strategies:  

even  when  doubling  their  prac3ces,  Type  I  and  III  

cannot  become  food  secure  

Type  II  and  IV  meet  their  food  needs  by  increasing  their  

intensity  of  prac3ce  

▪  as  land  area  per  capita  ↓,  ↑  food  security  =  ↑  land  producOvity     ▪  contrasOng  coping  strategies  for  contrasOng  types:  

-­‐400

-­‐200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Cash  flow

 (USD

)

Type  I Type  IIType  III Type  IV

staple cropsharvest

vegetablesharvest

Rainy seasonDry  season

staple cropsplanting

vegetablesplanting

Type  III  relies  only  on  land  area  for  food  

consump3on:  although  more  food  secure  today,  it  is  more  

vulnerable  

heps://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/10203  

hep://data.ilri.org/portal/dataset?q=IMPACT+Lite    

Yatenga  

Lawra  

Kaffrine  

context  

This  document  is  licensed  for  use  under  a  CreaOve  Commons  AeribuOon  –Non  commercial-­‐Share  Alike  3.0  Unported  License                                                  October  2014