This document examines the impact of agricultural adaptation strategies on food security in West Africa. It analyzes household survey data from 200 households in 3 sites to define 4 household types based on their food security status, asset levels, and market orientation. It finds that adoption of strategies like soil conservation, agroforestry, livestock and crop diversity can improve food security for some household types but not others. Specifically, households that intensified their practices and had larger land areas per capita saw greater improvements in food security and land productivity. The strategies households use depend on their type, with more food-secure households relying on high-value crop production and diversified income sources.

1. Linking
agricultural
adapta/on
strategies
and
food
security:
evidence
from
West
Africa
▪
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
Priority
of
Type
II
is
not
in
food
consump3on
but
in
maintaining
income:
although
less
food
secure,
it
is
less
vulnerable
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
methods
results
(b) (c) ▪
Labour
force
100
80
Productive
assets
60
40
Domestic
20
assets
Off
farm
income
Net
income
conclusions
I
Subsistence
II
Diversified
Food
security
26
%
34
%
55
%
60
%
Land
area
per
cap.
small
small
large
large
Market
orientaOon
low
high
low
high
characterisOcs
and
intensity
of
pracOce
of
adaptaOon
strategies:
(b) (c)
(a) (b) (c)
Land
productivity
Improved
varieties
Income
sources
Type
I
Type
II
Type
III
Type
IV
Labour
force
100
80
60
40
20
0
SWC
Improved
varieties
Productive
assets
Small
ruminants
Domestic
assets
Trees
100
80
60
40
20
0
Off
farm
income
Net
income
Livestock
assets
Total
area
Diversity Vegetables
Fertilizers
Market
orientation
Type
I Type
II Type
III Type
IV
III
Extensive
SWC
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
0
SWC
IV
Intensified
Improved
varieties
Small
ruminants
Small
ruminants
Trees
Improved
varieties
20
0
Trees
Diversity Vegetables
Improved
varieties
Type
I
Type
II
Type
III
Type
IV
Fertilizers
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-­‐200
▪
adopOon
of
adaptaOon
strategies
can
improve
the
food
security
status
of
some
household
types,
but
not
all:
14000
12000
10000
8000
100
80
60
Improved
varieties
Diversity Vegetables
6000
4000
2000
0
Small
ruminants
Trees
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
100
80
60
40
SWC
14000
20
0
12000
Energy
produced
(Mj/ha)
Intensity
of
CAS
practices
Type
II
and
IV
meet
their
food
needs
by
increasing
their
Type
I
Type
II
Type
III
Type
IV
none
50%
decrease current 50%
increase 100%
increase
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Energy
produced
(Mj/ha)
Intensity
of
CAS
practices
Type
I
Type
II
Type
III
Type
IV
average
energy
needed
to
have
100%
of
food
secure
Land
productivity (MJ/ha)
Intensity
of
practice
of
adaptation
strategies
adapta/on
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:
Diversity Vegetables
Fertilizers
Type
I Type
II Type
III Type
IV
40
20
Fertilizers
100
80
60
40
20
▪
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
0
Productive
assets
Domestic
assets
Off
farm
income
Net
income
Market
orientation
Type
I
Type
II
Type
III
Type
IV
0
SWC
Small
ruminants
Trees
Diversity Vegetables
Fertilizers
Type
I Type
II Type
III Type
IV
0
SWC
Small
ruminants
Trees
Diversity Vegetables
Fertilizers
intensity
of
prac3ce
even
when
doubling
their
prac3ces,
Type
I
and
III
cannot
become
food
secure
▪
as
land
area
per
capita
↓,
↑
food
security
=
↑
land
producOvity
▪
contrasOng
coping
strategies
for
contrasOng
types:
-­‐400
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Cash
flow
(USD)
Type
I Type
II
Type
III Type
IV
staple crops
harvest
vegetables
harvest
Rainy season
Dry
season
staple crops
planting
vegetables
planting
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