IMPACT AND ADOPTION OF CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN AFRICA: A MULTI-SCALE & MULTI-STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

Marc Corbeels, corbeels@cirad.fr

Tom Apina, Saidi Koala, Johannes Schuler, Bernard Triomphe, Mohammed El Mourid, Karim Traore, Isaiah Nyagumbo, Rachid Mrabet, Eric Penot,

Helena Gomez-Macpherson, Jan de Graaff, Pablo Tittonell

Aims

a better understanding of the reasons for the limited adoption of CA in Africa - by analysing past and on-going CA experiences –case studies-

a better comprehension of where, when and for whom CA works best, and how CA should be configured in different settings

the identification of knowledge gaps for future research, development and promotion of CA in Africa.

CA2Africa project: Analysing and Foreseeing its Impact - Comprehending its Adoption

www.CA2Africa.eu

Univocal promotion of Conservation Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa by international organizations, donors, NGOs (and churches) as a means to overcome continuing poor-profitability, food insecurity and soil degradation on smallholder farms

Often promoted as a “panacea”

« In Zambia, conservation agriculture has helped vulnerable households pull through drought and livestock epidemics. In the 2000-2001 drought, farmers who used conservation agriculture managed to harvest one crop, others farming with conventional methods faced total crop failure.» FAO news release October 4, 2005

Background

Competition for crop residues

Surface residues = ‘God’s blanket’

Farming God’s way

Agro-ecological and socio-economic settings are no longer the structuring forces of agronomic practices

CA has been widely adopted by farmers in North and South America,- and in parts of Asia

Much less success with smallholders in Africa despite > 2 decades of research and development investments

Low adoption rates in Africa

in 1000 ha CA % of cropland

Argentina 19719 58.8 Brazil 25502 38.3 Australia 12000 26.9 Canada 13481 25.9 USA 26500 15.3

South Africa 368 2.4 Zambia 40 0.8 Kenya 33 0.6 Zimbabwe 15 0.4 Mozambique 9 0.2 Morocco 4 0.1

Source: Kassam, Friedrich, Shaxson and Pretty (2009) International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7(4) 292-320

The area under CA increased steadily since the start of the project. A high proportion of the farmers abandon the CA technique after 2 years (of experimentation) Once farmers have gone through the experimental phase, the dropout rates are much lower and

stabilize

Example: adoption of CA in Madagascar

BV Lac Project on promotion of CA-based rice systems (see also presentation of Eric Penot, Thursday, 9.00h)

CA2Africa project: a multi-stakeholder analysis

to share, assess and learn together with all stakeholders from these case studies on CA.

Morocco and Tunisia

Madagascar

Kenya, Tanzania

Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia

Burkina Faso, Benin

Dynamic iterative innovation process

Policy makers

Dynamic iterative innovation process

Policy makers

• an interactive approach linear approach of knowledge transfer • getting the right stakeholders on-board with their adequate role• key role of farmers & their associations

Source: Wall, Ekboir, and Hobbs (2002) International Workshop on Conservation Agriculture Uzbekistan.

A multi-stakeholder innovation process

CA2Africa project: a multi-stakeholder analysis

Conceptual framework: three scales of analysis

• At each scale opportunities and constraints emerge that may favor or impede the adoption of CA• Technical performance (yield) is clearly but one of the determinants of

adoption • CA is a successful ‘innovation’ when fully embedded in contexts of the 3

scales• Each scale has its own analytical tools and/or models

interactions

Crop growth models

Bio-economic models

Qualitative assessment tools

1. Yield benefits usually in the long term, while costs are immediate

2. Strong trade-offs with other activities at the farm level and above

3. Poor functioning of and access to (input) markets4. Knowledge-intensive nature of implementing CA5. Need for ‘tailoring’ CA to the huge diversity of farmers,

local practices and local / regional environments

Major constraints for adoption/challenges for research and development

Source: Rusinamhodzi, Corbeels, van Wijk, Rufino, Nyamangara and Giller (2011) Agronomy for Sustainable Development (in press)

• Yield benefits from CA are mostly realized in the long-term, - and when rotations are applied • Causes of short-term yield reductions, and how to avoid them, requires further research

1. Yield benefits in the long term: meta-analysis

2. Strong trade-offs of implementing CA

Competing uses for crop residues, preventing their availability for mulching; feed is typically in short supply and takes preference especially under semi-arid conditions (where livestock is of great importance

and biomass production is low) often non-exclusive products: free grazing

Homefields

Aureole 2Aureole 3Aureole 3

2. Strong trade-offs of implementing CA

Territorial arrangements between villagers (farmer-herders and herders) in Tapi village in northern Cameroon (Dugue et al, 2011) A common goal: to produce more feed for livestock but not at the expense of

the production of cereals (no reduction possible in area for cereals) Community-based management of grazing areas in the dry season Questioning of the right of free grazing Zones were defined: a ’green’ area or open area, a ’red’ area or closed area

and a ‘orange’ area Monitoring by a committee

• CA without herbicides increases labour demand for weeding• Implying a shift of work

• from mechanized to manual labour• from men to women

• Without use of herbicides CA is unlikely to result in significant net savings in labour, while net savings may appear in the long-term if herbicides are used

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Conventionaltillage

Conservationagriculture

labo

ur (

hour

s/ha

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Conventional tillage Conservationagriculture

lab

ou

r (h

ou

rs/h

a)

harvest

weeding

fertilization

planting

Source: Siziba (2008) PhD thesis, University of Hohenheim

Zimuto, Zimbabwe

Shamva, Zimbabwe

2. Strong trade-offs of implementing CA

3. Poor functioning of markets

Limited access to inputs: no-till equipment, herbicides, and fertilizer Expensive Lack of effective input supply chain

4. Knowledge-intensive nature of implementing CA

Implementing CA successfully requires understanding and/or making use of ecological principles

‘Full’ CA systems require major simultaneous changes in soil/crop management

CA requires significant capacity building (farmers, extension, research)

As a results- adoption is unlikely to be ‘immediate’

• Input-intensive nature of CA systems: more adapted for wealthier farmers

Source: Rusinamhodzi, Corbeels, van Wijk, Rufino, Nyamangara and Giller (2011) Agronomy for Sustainable Development (in press)

5. Need for tailoring CA

Flat land Clayey soils Poor productivity Many livestock Little capacity to invest

Unsecure access to land

Poor markets Poor institutional environment

Steep slopes Sandy/loam soils Abundant biomass Few livestock Wealthier farmers who can

afford inputs Stable land tenure

arrangements Good markets ‘Enabling’ institutional

environments

Likelihood of adoption by farmers?

5. Need for tailoring CA: framework for ‘ideotyping’

Potential of CA is site- and farmer-specific and thus depends on local bio-physical, socio-economic and

institutional conditions Major challenge for research community: assess where, which and

for whom CA practices may best fit?

5. Need for tailoring CA

Potential benefits of CA, many of them in the long-term and with « full » CA (rotations!)

Profits from CA are not always immediately felt by farmers = bottleneck to adoption

Many R&D challenges in « fitting » CA to local conditions and achieving adoption among smallholders in Africa

Complex, multi-scale, multi-stakeholder nature of a successful CA innovation process

In summary: 4 key points

Thanks for your attention

Diversity of CA systems

Defining a socio-ecological niche for CA

5. Need for tailoring CA: framework for ‘ideotyping’

4. Knowledge-intensive nature of implementing CA

• CA = holistic systems with major changes in soil/crop management at the same time

• Need for capacity building (farmers, extension, research) with room for adaptations

Ag

ron

om

ic e

ffic

ien

cy

Currentpractice

Germplasm& fertilizer

+ Organicresource mgt

+ Localadaptation

Germplasm& fertilizer’

+ Organicresource mgt

Germplasm& fertilizer

‘Full ISFM’Move towards ISFM

Increase in knowledge

Responsive soilsPoor, less-responsive soils

A

B

C

Yie

ld/

CA

8 kg nutrients/ha

Ag

ron

om

ic e

ffic

ien

cy

Currentpractice

Germplasm& fertilizer

+ Organicresource mgt

+ Localadaptation

Germplasm& fertilizer’

+ Organicresource mgt

Germplasm& fertilizer

‘Full ISFM’Move towards ISFM

Increase in knowledge

Responsive soilsPoor, less-responsive soils

A

B

C

Yie

ld/

CA

8 kg nutrients/ha