CGSpaceA Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs
    View Item 
    •   CGSpace Home
    • CGIAR Research Programs and Platforms (2012-2021)
    • CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)
    • CCAFS Journal Articles
    • View Item
       
    • CGSpace Home
    • CGIAR Research Programs and Platforms (2012-2021)
    • CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)
    • CCAFS Journal Articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    The economic potential of residue management and fertilizer use to address climate change impacts on mixed smallholder farmers in Burkina Faso

    Thumbnail
    Authors
    Henderson, Benjamin B.
    Cacho, Oscar
    Thornton, Philip K.
    Wijk, Mark T. van
    Herrero, Mario T.
    Date
    2018-11
    Language
    en
    Type
    Journal Article
    Review status
    Peer Review
    ISI journal
    Accessibility
    Open Access
    Usage rights
    All rights reserved; no re-use allowed
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Share
    
    Citation
    Henderson B, Cacho O, Thornton P, van Wijk M, Herrero M. 2018. The economic potential of residue management and fertilizer use to address climate change impacts on mixed smallholder farmers in Burkina Faso. Agricultural Systems 167:195-205.
    Permanent link to cite or share this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/97666
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.09.012
    Abstract/Description
    There are large yield gaps in the mixed smallholder farming systems of Africa, with limited opportunities to sustainably increase productivity and adapt to climate change. In this study, the ex-ante potential of residue retention and fertilization measures to meet this challenge is assessed using a positive mathematical programming (PMP) model. This micro-economic model captures decision making at the farm level for a sample population in Northern Burkina Faso for the 2010 to 2045 simulation period. In contrast to previous studies of mixed farms in this area, we model each individual farm in the sample population, instead of one or a small number of representative farms. We are therefore able identify groups of farms for which each measure is profitable, applied either individually or as a combined package. This approach also enables simulation of the economic impacts from indiscriminate applications of the measures or “smart” applications which are restricted to the farms that profit from the measures. Our findings are aligned with other studies showing that residue retention causes trade-offs between crop and livestock production, while fertilization can synergistically raise returns to both production activities. The annual profit losses from the “middle of the road” RCP6 trajectory of climate change assumed in this study were estimated to reach 15% by 2045. The smart package of measures increased aggregate profit the most, although not by nearly enough to claw back the losses from climate change. The fertilizer measures were the next most profitable, with indiscriminately applied residue retention being the only measure to reduce aggregate profit relative to this climate change baseline. Importantly, the measures that are the most profitable at the aggregate level are not necessarily those that would be the most widely adopted. For example, residue retention is profitable for a larger share of the sample population than fertilization. The advantage of the population scale analysis used in this study is that it prevents measures such as residue retention, which can benefit a significant share of farms, from being disregarded by practitioners because they appear to be unprofitable at the aggregate level or when viewed through the lens of an average representative farm. Finally, amidst the growing emphasis of studies on the benefits of packages compared to individual measures, the findings from this study are more equivocal about this choice, suggesting that extension programs should have the flexibility to apply measures individually or as a package.
    CGIAR Author ORCID iDs
    Philip Thorntonhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1854-0182
    Mario Herrerohttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7741-5090
    Other CGIAR Affiliations
    Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
    AGROVOC Keywords
    climate change; agriculture; food security
    Subjects
    PRIORITIES AND POLICIES FOR CSA;
    Countries
    Burkina Faso
    Regions
    Africa; Western Africa
    Organizations Affiliated to the Authors
    CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia; University of New England; International Livestock Research Institute
    Collections
    • CCAFS Journal Articles [1245]
    • ILRI articles in journals [6030]
    • ILRI sustainable livestock systems program outputs [747]

    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback
     

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Browse

    All of CGSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy CCAFS subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy CRP subjectBy River basinBy Output typeBy Bioversity subjectBy CIAT subjectBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subjectThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy CCAFS subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy CRP subjectBy River basinBy Output typeBy Bioversity subjectBy CIAT subjectBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subject

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback