Is Sustainable Intensification Possible? Evidence from Ethiopia

Factors Influencing the Adoption of Agricultural Practices in Ghana’s Forest-Fringe Communities

Two-thirds of rural Ghanaians are farmers, and farming is almost the only income source for Ghana’s forest-fringe communities. Some farmers adopt some agricultural practices to augment their operations while others do not. We examined the factors that influence farmers’ adoption and intensity of adoption of agricultural practices, namely, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, improved seeds, animal manure, and crop rotation. We surveyed the agricultural systems and livelihoods of 291 smallholder households in forest-fringe communities and developed a multivariate model (canonical correlation analysis) to test the degree to which social, economic, and institutional factors correlate with adoption and intensity of adoption of the above practices. We found that 35.4% of the farmers do not adopt any of the practices because they perceive them to be expensive, not useful, and difficult to adopt. The rest (64.6%) adopt at least one of the practices to control weeds, pests and diseases, and consequently increase crop yields. Our results indicate that farmers that perceive the aforementioned practices to be more beneficial, cultivate multiple plots, and have access to extension services adopt more of the practices. Farmer age and distance to source of inputs negatively correlate with adoption and intensity of adoption of agricultural practices. Almost two-thirds each of adopters and non-adopters do not have access to agricultural extension services and this could pose threats to the sustainability of the forest reserves within and around which the farmers cultivate. Educating farmers on agricultural practices that are forest-friendly is critical in the forest-fringe communities of Ghana. The correct application of practices could double outputs and minimize threats to forests and biodiversity through land-sparing.

Exploring Drivers of Livelihood Diversification and Its Effect on Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Practices in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia

Land degradation poses a major threat to agricultural production and food security in Ethiopia, and sustainable land management (SLM) is key in dealing with its adverse impacts. This paper examines the covariates that shape rural livelihood diversification and examines their effects on the intensity of adoption of SLM practices. Household-level data were collected in 2017 from 270 households in three drought-prone watersheds located in northwestern Ethiopia. We used the Herfindahl–Simpson diversity index to explore the extent of livelihood diversification. A stochastic dominance ordering was also employed to identify remunerative livelihood activities. A multivariate probit model was employed to estimate the probability of choosing simultaneous livelihood strategies, and an ordered probit model was estimated to examine the effect of livelihood diversification on the adoption intensity of SLM practices. In addition to mixed cropping and livestock production, the production of emerging cash crops (e.g., Acacia decurrens for charcoal, and khat) dominated the overall income generation of the majority of farmers. Stress/shock experience, extent of agricultural intensification, and agro-ecology significantly affected the probability of choosing certain livelihood strategies. Livelihood diversification at the household level was significantly associated with the dependency ratio, market distance, credit access, extension services, membership in community organizations, level of income, and livestock ownership. A greater extent of livelihood diversification had a significant negative effect on adopting a greater number of SLM practices, whereas it had a positive effect on lower SLM adoption intensity. Overall, we found evidence that having greater livelihood diversification could prompt households not to adopt more SLM practices. Livelihood initiatives that focus on increasing shock resilience, access to financial support mechanisms, improving livestock production, and providing quality extension services, while also considering agro-ecological differences, are needed. In addition, development planners should take into account the livelihood portfolios of rural households when trying to implement SLM policies and programs.