The impact of agroforestry-based soil fertility replenishment practices on the poor in Western Kenya

"This case study explores the relationships between agroforestry-based soil fertility replenishment (SFR) systems (improved fallows and biomass transfer) and poverty reduction in rural western Kenya. It further examines the role that different dissemination approaches play in conditioning which segments of society gain access to information to the technologies and then uses them. The study made use of many different qualitative and quantitative data collection methods and samples from both pilot areas where researchers maintained a significant presence and nonpilot areas where farmers learned of the technologies through other channels. Adoption processes were analyzed quantitatively using almost 2,000 households while changes in impact indicators were measured for just over 100 households. Qualitative methods included case studies for 40 households, where researchers lived in the villages for six months, and focus group discussions involving 16 different groups. The findings showed that poverty is rampant among households and appeared to worsen during the study period. The poor were reached by many different information providers and liked certain aspects of almost all types of organizations, from government extension to community group-based methods. Access to information is mediated by social relationships of wealth, gender and status; nevertheless, poor farmers acquired a significant amount of knowledge about soil fertility management. Adoption rates are not outstanding but they are encouraging, with about 20% of all farmers using the technologies on a regular basis, and a sizable percentage of farmers newly testing. Unlike some agricultural technologies historically, SFR was found not to be biased toward people controlling and managing resources above a certain threshold. The study also found that the poor were using the agroforestry technologies to a much greater extent than they were fertilizer (about 33% of farmers not using any other soil fertility practice were trying the new systems). The technologies were almost always at least doubling yields of maize. Despite these promising signs, the systems were not found to be linked to improved household-level food security or poverty indicators, primarily because the size of the fields under the agroforestry systems was, on average, quite small." Authors' AbstractSustainable livelihoods ,Agricultural research ,

The impact of agroforestry-based soil fertility replenishment practices on the poor in Western Kenya

"This case study explores the relationships between agroforestry-based soil fertility replenishment (SFR) systems (improved fallows and biomass transfer) and poverty reduction in rural western Kenya. It further examines the role that different dissemination approaches play in conditioning which segments of society gain access to information to the technologies and then uses them. The study made use of many different qualitative and quantitative data collection methods and samples from both pilot areas where researchers maintained a significant presence and nonpilot areas where farmers learned of the technologies through other channels. Adoption processes were analyzed quantitatively using almost 2,000 households while changes in impact indicators were measured for just over 100 households. Qualitative methods included case studies for 40 households, where researchers lived in the villages for six months, and focus group discussions involving 16 different groups. The findings showed that poverty is rampant among households and appeared to worsen during the study period. The poor were reached by many different information providers and liked certain aspects of almost all types of organizations, from government extension to community group-based methods. Access to information is mediated by social relationships of wealth, gender and status; nevertheless, poor farmers acquired a significant amount of knowledge about soil fertility management. Adoption rates are not outstanding but they are encouraging, with about 20% of all farmers using the technologies on a regular basis, and a sizable percentage of farmers newly testing. Unlike some agricultural technologies historically, SFR was found not to be biased toward people controlling and managing resources above a certain threshold. The study also found that the poor were using the agroforestry technologies to a much greater extent than they were fertilizer (about 33% of farmers not using any other soil fertility practice were trying the new systems). The technologies were almost always at least doubling yields of maize. Despite these promising signs, the systems were not found to be linked to improved household-level food security or poverty indicators, primarily because the size of the fields under the agroforestry systems was, on average, quite small." Authors' AbstractSustainable livelihoods ,Agricultural research ,

Assessing the impact of high-yielding varieties of maize in resettlement areas of Zimbabwe

"This study is part of a larger effort to explore the impact of agricultural research on poverty reduction. It examines the diffusion and impact of hybrid maize in selected resettlement areas of rural Zimbabwe, paying particular attention to varieties made widely available from the mid-1990s onwards. While "Zimbabwe's Green Revolution" of the early 1980s was characterized by the widespread adoption of hybrid maize varieties and significant increases in yields, the subsequent diffusion of newer varieties occurred more slowly and had a more modest impact. Several factors account for this. Government now plays a much-reduced role and one that increasingly focuses on "better farmers." Private-sector institutions that have entered the maize sector operate mainly in areas of high agricultural potential. Consequently, "adoption" partly reflects "choice" but also the (sometimes) limited physical availability of varieties. A further factor is the nature of the technology being introduced. Newer varieties are bred to meet the evolving needs of commercial farmers, but these new needs most notably improved diseaseresistance are not shared by the farmers in our survey and are not associated with significantly higher yields where use of fertilizers is limited. A further consideration is that information is disseminated via multiple channels and in a fragmentary fashion in an environment where tolerance of dissent is limited, the behavior of neighbors is viewed suspiciously and some actors involved in dissemination (such as extension workers) are increasingly viewed with mistrust. The presumption that farmers "learn from each other" is less applicable in circumstances such as these. Our case studies indicate links between the production of maize in excess of subsistence needs, the accumulation of assets such as livestock and tools, payment of school fees, and the acquisition of inputs such as fertilizer and labor for the subsequent cropping season. This coincides with the views of farmers who see high-yielding varieties of maize as an influential factor in raising livelihood above the level of poverty that prevailed when they first moved into the area. However, new varieties appear to have increased incomes only marginally. When we control for farmer characteristics and the endogeneity of adoption, use of these new varieties increases crop incomes only by about 10 percent; a 10-percent increase in maize income is associated with an increase in livestock holdings ranging from 4 to 12 percent. However, these modest impacts result in an improved ability to deal with vulnerability. Hybrids do raise productivity in maize production. Higher income from maize, and from other crops, leads to investment in livestock. And livestock holdings are an important means through which child health is protected when drought occurs. All such changes are associated with an improvement in well-being and a reduction in poverty. " Authors' AbstractPoverty alleviation ,Agricultural research ,Hybrid maize Zimbabwe ,Crop yields ,livestock ,impact assessment ,

Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South

Creating a just and sustainable planet will require not only small changes, but also systemic transformations in how humans relate to the planet and to each other, i.e., social–ecological transformations. We suggest there is a need for collaborative environments where experimentation with new configurations of social–ecological systems can occur, and we refer to these as transformative spaces. In this paper, we seek a better understanding of how to design and enable the creation of transformative spaces in a development context. We analyse nine case studies from a previous special issue on Designing Transformative Spaces that aimed to collect examples of cutting-edge action-oriented research on transformations from the Global South. The analysis showed five design phases as being essential: Problem Definition Phase; Operationalisation Phase; Tactical Phase; Outcome Phase; and Reflection Phase. From this synthesis, we distilled five key messages that should be considered when designing research, including: (a) there are ethical dilemmas associated with creating a transformative space in a system; (b) it is important to assess the readiness of the system for change before engaging in it; (c) there is a need to balance between ‘safe’ and ‘safe-enough’ spaces for transformation; (d) convening a transformative space requires an assemblage of diverse methodological frameworks and tools; and (e) transformative spaces can act as a starting point for institutionalising transformative change. Many researchers are now engaging in transdisciplinary transformations research, and are finding themselves at the knowledge–action interface contributing to transformative space-making. We hope that by analysing experiences from across different geographies we can contribute towards better understanding of how to navigate the processes needed for the urgent global transformations that are being called for to create a more equitable and sustainable planet Earth

Competing Claims on Natural Resources: What Role for Science?

Competing claims on natural resources become increasingly acute, with the poor being most vulnerable to adverse outcomes of such competition. A major challenge for science and policy is to progress from facilitating univocal use to guiding stakeholders in dealing with potentially conflicting uses of natural resources. The development of novel, more equitable, management options that reduce rural poverty is key to achieving sustainable use of natural resources and the resolution of conflicts over them. Here, we describe an interdisciplinary and interactive approach for: (i) the understanding of competing claims and stakeholder objectives; (ii) the identification of alternative resource use options, and (iii) the scientific support to negotiation processes between stakeholders. Central to the outlined approach is a shifted perspective on the role of scientific knowledge in society. Understanding scientific knowledge as entering societal arenas and as fundamentally negotiated, the role of the scientist becomes a more modest one, a contributor to ongoing negotiation processes among stakeholders. Scientists can, therefore, not merely describe and explain resource-use dynamics and competing claims, but in doing so, they should actively contribute to negotiation processes between stakeholders operating at different scales (local, national, regional, and global). Together with stakeholders, they explore alternatives that can contribute to more sustainable and equitable use of natural resources and, where possible, design new technical options and institutional arrangements

Assessing the impact of high-yielding varieties of maize in resettlement areas of Zimbabwe

"This study is part of a larger effort to explore the impact of agricultural research on poverty reduction. It examines the diffusion and impact of hybrid maize in selected resettlement areas of rural Zimbabwe, paying particular attention to varieties made widely available from the mid-1990s onwards. While "Zimbabwe's Green Revolution" of the early 1980s was characterized by the widespread adoption of hybrid maize varieties and significant increases in yields, the subsequent diffusion of newer varieties occurred more slowly and had a more modest impact. Several factors account for this. Government now plays a much-reduced role and one that increasingly focuses on "better farmers." Private-sector institutions that have entered the maize sector operate mainly in areas of high agricultural potential. Consequently, "adoption" partly reflects "choice" but also the (sometimes) limited physical availability of varieties. A further factor is the nature of the technology being introduced. Newer varieties are bred to meet the evolving needs of commercial farmers, but these new needs most notably improved disease resistance are not shared by the farmers in our survey and are not associated with significantly higher yields where use of fertilizers is limited. A further consideration is that information is disseminated via multiple channels and in a fragmentary fashion in an environment where tolerance of dissent is limited, the behavior of neighbors is viewed suspiciously and some actors involved in dissemination (such as extension workers) are increasingly viewed with mistrust. The presumption that farmers "learn from each other" is less applicable in circumstances such as these. Our case studies indicate links between the production of maize in excess of subsistence needs, the accumulation of assets such as livestock and tools, payment of school fees, and the acquisition of inputs such as fertilizer and labor for the subsequent cropping season. This coincides with the views of farmers who see high-yielding varieties of maize as an influential factor in raising livelihood above the level of poverty that prevailed when they first moved into the area. However, new varieties appear to have increased incomes only marginally. When we control for farmer characteristics and the endogeneity of adoption, use of these new varieties increases crop incomes only by about 10 percent; a 10-percent increase in maize income is associated with an increase in livestock holdings ranging from 4 to 12 percent. However, these modest impacts result in an improved ability to deal with vulnerability. Hybrids do raise productivity in maize production. Higher income from maize, and from other crops, leads to investment in livestock. And livestock holdings are an important means through which child health is protected when drought occurs. All such changes are associated with an improvement in well-being and a reduction in poverty. " Authors' AbstractPoverty alleviation ,Agricultural research ,Hybrid maize Zimbabwe ,Crop yields ,

The impact of firm-specific financial factors on cross-border M&A: Assessing the likelihood and transaction size in changing market environments

IThis study aims at proving the impact of firm-specific financial determinants on the likelihood of cross-border M&A and their impact on the relative size of transactions, both against the background of changing market conditions. In conclusion, we find our first hypothesis, that the strength of single firm-specific financial factors increases the likelihood of firm’s to undertake cross-border M&A, to be confirmed. Altered financial market conditions indeed impact which factors are determining this propensity. In addition, we find our second hypothesis, that the strength of single firm-specific financial factors increases the relative transaction size of cross-border M&A, to be confirmed. Altered financial market conditions strongly impact which factors are determining the size