Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 39–55 | Cite as

The potential of agroforestry in the high rainfall areas of Zambia: a peasant programming model approach

  • S. T. Holden
Article

Abstract

Existing cropping systems in Northern Zambia cause deforestation and soil degradation. To reduce the environmental problems, the potential of alley cropping and pigeon peas replacing the existing cropping systems was analyzed by the use of multi-objective programming models of peasant households. The models were formulated based on the theories of Chayanov and Nakajima which are suitable under conditions of imperfect labour markets. Risk was incorporated in the models in relation to weather and fertilizer supply. The models provide an opportunity to relate key characteristics of new technologies to key characteristics of peasants' preferences and resource constrains. The models may also be used to identify minimum performance levels required for new technologies to be found acceptable.

Models of a small male-headed household are presented under varying conditions: for high and low population densities, with and without fertilizer subsidies, and for households with and without access to off-farm employment under high population density conditions.

The analysis showed that the alley cropping technology is very unlikely to replace thechitemene system where there is still sufficient woodland for its continuation. The technology may have higher potential in more densely populated areas, where more intensive forms of agriculture are practised and where there is access to inputs such as lime and fertilizer. The removal of fertilizer subsides as a result of the Structural Adjustment Programs, may favour alley cropping because this technology may increase the efficiency of fertilizer use and reduce the need for nitrogenous fertilizers. The potential of the technology depends very much on the management level and location-specific performance of the trees.

The pigeon pea technology has high potential if it is accepted as food since it has a very favourable yield per unit of labour, requires no monetary inputs, and can grow, in very poor soils. Pigeon pea also has potential as a cheap source of protein for the urban poor.

Key words

shifting cultivation Northern Zambia chitemene peasant household models multi-objective programming Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boserup E (1965) The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd WJR (1959) A Report in the Lunzuwa Agricultural Station. Its History, Its Development and Its Work. Publication No 1. Misamfu Agricultural Station, KasamaGoogle Scholar
  3. Chayanov AV (1966) In: Thorner D, Kerblay B and Smith REF, eds, The Theory of Peasant Economy. Irwin, Homewood, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  4. Holden ST (1988) Farming Systems and Household Economy in New Chambeshi, Old Chambeshi and Yunge Villages near Kasama, Northern Province, Zambia. An Agroforestry Baseline Study. Zambian SPRP Studies No. 9. NORAGRIC, Ås, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  5. Holden ST (1991a) Peasants and sustainable development — thechitemene region of Zambia — theory, evidence and models. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway, ÅsGoogle Scholar
  6. Holden ST (1991b) Edible caterpillars — a potential agroforestry resource? They are appreciated by local people, neglected by scientists. Food Insects Newsletter 4(2): 3–4Google Scholar
  7. Holden ST (1993) Peasant household modelling: farming systems evolution and sustainability in Northern Zambia. Agricultural Economics (in press)Google Scholar
  8. Holden ST and Otika L (1991) Farmer participatory research and agroforestry development —a case study from Northern Zambia. Agricultural systems 36: 173–189Google Scholar
  9. Holden ST, Lungu S and Solberg KH (1988) Biomass yield ofLeucaena cultivars in Northern Zambia. Leucaena Research Reports 9: 138–140Google Scholar
  10. Holden ST, Lungu S, and Volk J (1989) Growth rate and coppicing ability ofSesbania macrantha after repeated prunings at various heights. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports 7: 132–134Google Scholar
  11. Lungu S (1987) An ecological evaluation of Zambian trees and shrubs in relation to their potential uses for agroforestry in Zambia. MSc thesis. The University of Zambia, LusakaGoogle Scholar
  12. Mansfield JE, Bennet JG, King RB, Lang DM and Lawton RM (1975) Land Resources of the Northern and Laupula Provinces, Zambia, a Reconnaissance Assessment. Vol 1–4. Land Resources Division, Ministry of Overseas Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Matthews RB, Holden ST, Volk J and Lungu S (1992a) The potential of alley cropping in improvement of cultivation systems in the high rainfall areas of Zambia. I.Chitemene andFundikila. Agroforestry Systems 17: 219–240Google Scholar
  14. Matthews RB, Lungu S, Volk J, Holden ST and Solberg K (1992b) The potential of alley cropping in improvement of cultivation systems in the high rainfall areas of Zambia. II. Maize production. Agroforestry Systems 17: 241–261Google Scholar
  15. Mattsson LE (1989) Agroforestry Diagnosis in Mambwe Area, Northern Province of Zambia. Assessment of Constraints and Potentials to Agriculture Production Systems in Nsokolo Watershed with Targets for Agroforestry Research and Development. Department of Silviculture, Agricultural University of Norway, ÅsGoogle Scholar
  16. Nakajima C (1986) Subjective Equilibrium Theory of the Farm Household. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Niang CI (1990) From ecological crisis in the West to the energy problem in Africa. Peasantries 124: 225–239Google Scholar
  18. Otika LJ (1990) Farmers' evaluation of on-farm agroforestry research in Northern Zambia. MSc thesis. NORAGRIC, Agricultural University of Norway, ÅsGoogle Scholar
  19. Raintree JB and Warner K (1985) Agroforestry pathways for the development of shifting cultivation. Proc of the Tenth World Forestry Congress, 1–10 July, Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  20. Rocheleau DE (1988) The user perspective and the agroforestry research action agenda. In: Gholtz HC, ed, Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities and Potentials, pp 59–87. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  21. Romero C and Rehman T (1989) Multiple Criteria Analysis for Agricultural Decisions. Developments in Agricultural Decisions 5. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. Ruthenberg H (1980) Farming Systems in the Tropics. Third edition. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Sanchez PA (1987) Soil productivity and sustainability in agroforestry systems. In: Steppler HA and Nair PKR, eds, Agroforestry: A Decade of Development. ICRAF, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  24. Scherr SJ (1992) Not out of the woods yet: challenges for economic research on agroforestry. Am. Journ. Ag. Econ. 74(3): 802–808Google Scholar
  25. Soil Productivity Research Programme (SPRP) (1987a) Research Report 1983–86. SPRP, Misamfu RRS, KasamaGoogle Scholar
  26. SPRP (1987b) Annual Research Report 1987. SPRP, Misamfu RRS, KasamaGoogle Scholar
  27. SPRP (1989) Annual Research Report 1988. SPRP, Misamfu RRS, KasamaGoogle Scholar
  28. SPRP (1990) Annual Research Report 1980. SPRP, Misamfu RRS, KasamaGoogle Scholar
  29. Strømgaard P (1984) Field studies of land use underchitemene shifting cultivation, Zambia. Geografisk Tidsskrift 84: 78–85Google Scholar
  30. Woode P (1983) Changes in soil characteristics in a long term fertilizer trial with maize in Northern Zambia. 2 vols. MSc thesis, Dept of Soil Science, University of AberdeenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. T. Holden
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economics and Social SciencesAgricultural University of NorwayÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations