Skip to main content

Agroforestry as a climate change mitigation practice in smallholder farming: evidence from Kenya

Abstract

The promotion of agroforestry as a mitigation practice requires an understanding of the economic benefits and its acceptability to farmers. This work examines the agroecological and socio-economic factors that condition profitability and acceptance of agroforestry by smallholder farmers in Western Kenya. We differentiate the use of trees according to the permanence of carbon sequestration, introducing a distinction between practices with “high mitigation benefits” (timber) and practices with “low mitigation benefits” (fuelwood). This study goes beyond the analysis of incentives to plant trees to identify incentives to plant trees that lead to high mitigation outcomes. We show that environmental factors shaping the production system largely drive the choice for planting trees with high mitigation benefits. Most trees in the area are used for fuelwood, and the charcoal economy outweighs economic factors influencing planting of trees with high mitigation benefits. Larger households tend to produce more fuelwood, while high mitigation uses are positively related to the education level of the household head, and to the belief that trees play a positive role for the environment. Where trees contribute significantly to incomes, the norm is that they are owned by men. We conclude that although agroforestry is not perceived to be more profitable than traditional agricultural practices, it plays an important economic and environmental role by supporting subsistence through provision of fuelwood and could relieve pressure upon common forest resources. In areas with high tree cover, it also represents a way of storing capital to deal with risks and cope with uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Each dependent variable is a numeric variable equal to the sum of the number of high or low mitigation practices from each species of tree at farm level.

  2. 2.

    Possible sources of income included work in other farms, salaried employment, self-employment, gifts/remittances, environmental services, government projects, formal credit, informal credit, rent of machines/animals, rent of land, and sale of farm products.

  3. 3.

    The farmers were asked how much they agreed with the following statements: “Trees are profitable” and “trees are good for the environment.” Answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

  4. 4.

    Reardon et al. (2007) show that in poor areas, households typically operate both farm and non-farm activities, and although they may not do either very efficiently, they are able to manage risk, compensate for a poor asset base, and survive. At household level, increasing household income is typically associated with higher rates of pluriactivity. Rufino et al. (2013b) show that more diverse income sources results in both more income and more food security in East Africa.

  5. 5.

    Fruits represented around 10% of all products obtained from trees. For this reason, the economic value of high-potential mitigation uses might be underestimated.

  6. 6.

    The cost of hired labor is not included in the regression due to the small number of observations.

  7. 7.

    Our focus was primarily on the opportunity cost of household labor invested in agroforestry activities, which is a fundamental aspect of acceptability of a practice, as it affects its perceived feasibility. The opportunity cost of household labor was defined as the value of resources lost or forgone in order to develop HM and LM products, and that could have spent elsewhere (Reed 2007).

  8. 8.

    We obtained a measure of labor productivity per hour for the majority of farming practices for which we had records of production and prices (maize, sugarcane, beans, sorghum, sweet potato, millet, groundnut, and intercropping of these).

  9. 9.

    According to the authors, “women in Africa remain disadvantaged in the agricultural sector due to cultural, sociological, and economic factors. Such factors include limited access to resources and household decision-making. Such resources that are directly linked to agroforestry include land and tree resources, financial credit, extension service, labor, and appropriate technology. Furthermore, many African societies have taboos that prohibit women from undertaking certain activities, which may limit their participation in developmental interventions such as agroforestry.”

  10. 10.

    Due to issues of data reliability, fruits as well as minor products like fodder, leaves, thin poles used in construction, and medicinal herbs were excluded from the analysis.

  11. 11.

    A measure of net revenues including costs of inputs would show larger net revenues from agroforestry, because little inputs are required (seeds, fertilizers, etc.).

References

  1. Ajayi OC (2007) User acceptability of sustainable soil fertility technologies: lessons from farmers’ knowledge, attitude and practice in southern Africa. J Sustain Agric 30(3):21–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson EK, Zerriffi H (2012) Seeing the trees for the carbon: agroforestry for development and carbon mitigation. Clim Chang 115(3–4):741–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Backes MM (2001) The role of indigenous trees for the conservation of biocultural diversity in traditional agroforestry land use systems: the Bungoma case study: in-situ conservation of indigenous tree species. Agrofor Syst 52(2):119–132

  4. David S (1997) Household economy and traditional agroforestry systems in western Kenya. Agric Hum Values 14(2):169–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dorward P, Shepherd D, Galpin M (2007) Participatory farm management methods for analysis, decision making and communication. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  6. Franzel S (1999) Socioeconomic factors affecting the adoption potential of improved tree fallows in Africa. Agrofor Syst 47(1–3):305–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Franzel S, Coe R, Cooper P, Place F, Scherr SJ (2001) Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Syst 69(1):37–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Förch W, Kristjanson P, Cramer L, Barahona C, Thornton PK (2014) Back to baselines: measuring change and sharing data. Agriculture & Food Security 3(1):13

  9. Hosier RH (1989) The economics of smallholder agroforestry: two case studies. World Dev 17(11):1827–1839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jama BA, Mutegi JK, Njui AN (2008) Potential of improved fallows to increase household and regional fuelwood supply: evidence from western Kenya. Agrofor Syst 73(2):155–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jerneck A, Olsson L (2014) Food first! Theorising assets and actors in agroforestry: risk evaders, opportunity seekers and ‘the food imperative’ in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Agric Sustain 12(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kiptot E, Franzel S (2012) Gender and agroforestry in Africa: a review of women’s participation. Agrofor Syst 84(1):35–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kiptot E, Hebinck P, Franzel S, Richards P (2007) Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya. Agric Syst 94(2):509–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kristjanson P, Neufeldt H, Gassner A, Mango J, Kyazze FB, Desta S, Sayula G, Thiede B, Förch W, Thornton PK, Coe R (2012) Are food insecure smallholder households making changes in their farming practices? Evidence from East Africa. Food Sec 4(3):381–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mbow C, Smith P, Skole D, Duguma L, Bustamante M (2014) Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:8–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Meijer SS, Catacutan D, Ajayi OC, Sileshi GW, Nieuwenhuis M (2015) The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Agric Sustain 13(1):40–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Montagnini F, Nair PKR (2012) Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 61:281–295

    Google Scholar 

  18. Okalebo JR, Othieno CO, Woomer PL, Karanja NK, Semoka JRM, Bekunda MA, Mukhwana EJ (2006) Available technologies to replenish soil fertility in East Africa. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 76(2–3):153–170

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pisanelli A, Poole J, Franzel S (2008) The adoption of improved tree fallows in western Kenya: farmer practices, knowledge and perception. Forests Trees Livelihoods 18(3):233–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ramadhani T, Otsyina R, Franzel S (2002) Improving household incomes and reducing deforestation using rotational woodlots in Tabora district, Tanzania. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89(3):229–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Reardon T, Berdegué J, Barrett CB, Stamoulis K (2007) Household income diversification into rural nonfarm activities. Transforming the rural nonfarm economy: opportunities and threats in the developing world, 115–140

  22. Reed MS (2007) Participatory technology development for agroforestry extension: an innovation-decision approach. Afr J Agric Res 2(8):334–341

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rice RA (2008) Agricultural intensification within agroforestry: the case of coffee and wood products. Agric Ecosyst Environ 128(4):212–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosenstock TS, Rufino MC, Butterbach-Bahl K, Wollenberg E (2013) Towards a protocol for quantifying the greenhouse gas balance and identifying mitigation options in smallholder farming systems. Environ Res Letters 8(2):021003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosenstock TS, Tully KL, Arias-Navarro C, Neufeldt H, Butterbach-Bahl K, Verchot LV (2014) Agroforestry with N2-fixing trees: sustainable development's friend or foe? Curr Opin Agric Sustain 6:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Roshetko JM, Lasco RD, Angeles MSD (2007) Smallholder agroforestry systems for carbon storage. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12(2):219–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rufino MC, Quiros C, Boureima M, Desta S, Douxchamps S, Herrero M, Wanyama I (2013a) Developing generic tools for characterizing agricultural systems for climate and global change studies (IMPACTlite phase 2). Report to CCAFS

  28. Rufino MC, Thornton PK, Mutie I, Jones PG, Van Wijk MT, Herrero M (2013b) Transitions in agro-pastoralist systems of East Africa: impacts on food security and poverty. Agric Ecosyst Environ 179:215–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sood KK, Mitchell CP (2004) Do socio-psychological factors matter in agroforestry planning? Lessons from smallholder traditional agroforestry systems. Small Scale For Econ Manag Policy 3(2):239–255

    Google Scholar 

  30. Swinkels R, Franzel S (1997) Adoption potential of hedgerow intercropping in maize-based cropping systems in the highlands of western Kenya 2. Economic and farmers’ evaluation. Exp Agric 33:211–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Verchot LV, Van Noordwijk M, Kandji ST, Tomich TP, Ong C, Albrecht A, Mackensen J, Bantilan C, Anupama KV, Palm CA (2007) Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12:901–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yesuf M, Bluffstone R (2018) Consumption discount rates, risk aversion and wealth in low-income countries: evidence from a field experiment in rural Ethiopia. J Afr Econ

  33. Zubair M, Garforth C (2006) Farm level tree planting in Pakistan: the role of farmers’ perceptions and attitudes. Agrofor Syst 66(3):217–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanna De Giusti.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 289 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Giusti, G., Kristjanson, P. & Rufino, M.C. Agroforestry as a climate change mitigation practice in smallholder farming: evidence from Kenya. Climatic Change 153, 379–394 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02390-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fuelwood
  • Charcoal
  • Profitability
  • Acceptability
  • Gender
  • Labour