1. Frédéric Baudron, Raymond Nazare, Betina Edziwa, David Kahan
Harare, 17th March 2015
Two-wheel tractors, conservation
agriculture, and private sector involvement

2.  Goal: (1) to improve access to
mechanization, (2) reduce labour
drudgery, and (3) minimize biomass
trade-offs in ESA, through accelerated
delivery and adoption of 2WT-based
technologies by smallholders
 Target countries: Ethiopia, Kenya,
Tanzania, Zimbabwe
 Duration: March 2013 to February
2017
 Budget: 3.9 M Aus$ from
ACIAR/AIFSRC, 0.9 M Aus$ from
CIMMYT, 1.1 M Aus$ from partners
FACASI (Farm Mechanization & Conservation
Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification)

3. (www.ndzl.org)
Solar energy fixed
biologically in plant
biomass
Plant biomass
converted into
animal biomass

4.  Increasing labour shortages (rural-
urban migration, HIV/AIDS, ageing population)
 Declining number of draught
animals (biomass shortage, drought, diseases)
 High labour drudgery
 Gender implications
 Unattractive to the youth
 Farm power: a major limiting factor
to productivity in SSA?
Farm power: the forgotten
resource in SSA?

5.  CA (No-Till) mainly adopted in South
America, North America, Australia, & New
Zealand (Derpsch and Friedrich, 2009)
 One of the major incentive: reduction in
fuel and machinery costs (Kassam et al.,
2009)
 Major incentive in the less mechanized
systems in developing countries: early
planting (arising from the reduced number of
operations required to prepare the land)
(Haggblade and Tembo, 2003)
 Primary purpose of CA: establishing a
crop with as little energy (= power × time)
as possible
CA: first and foremost an
energy-saving technology

6. CA & Small Mech: Synergies
Soil inversion is the most power intensive operation.
Its suppression makes the use of lower powered, more
affordable and easier to maintain tractors possible.

7. CA with a Two-Wheel Tractor:
options commercially available
Strip tillage Direct-seeding: 2 rows Direct-seeding: 1 row

8. Dramatic reduction in the time
needed to establish a crop…
0
20
40
60
80
100
Conv land
prep +
planting
Conv
planting
Danyang
2BFG
VMP National
ZT
Fitarelli 2R Fitarelli 1R Morrisson
seeder
Time(hourha-1)
(Data from Hawassa, Ethiopia)

9. Low fuel consumption
5 to 10 L ha-1

10. Yield advantage for small grain

11. Myth 1: Small mech is not appropriate
for rainfed agriculture
Not powerful enough for ploughing… … but perfect for direct seeding

12. Myth 2: animal traction is cheaper than
small mech for SSF in SSA
Time needed to establish a crop divided by 7
22
4 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
Anim trac
conv ag
Anim trac
CA
2WT CA
Time(hoursperha)
7.33
1.33
0.25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Anim trac
conv ag
Anim trac
CA
2WT CA
Labourdemand
(manday/ha)
Labour productivity 5 to 30 times higher
Same entry point cost
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Anim trac
conv ag
Anim trac
CA
2WT CA
Cost(US$)
2WT no till pllanter
Anim trac no till planter
Anim tract conv planter
Anim trac plough
2WT 12HP
4 oxen
2530 2600 2800
2
1
6 hours per day 12 hours per day

13. (Baudron et al., submitted)
The same energy is needed for 8 hours work of
a pair of oxen weighing 300 kg each,
...and for the production of 10 L of milk (60 MJ)
69
28
3
No retention
Less than 1 tone per ha
1 tone per ha or more
18
57
25
(Baudron et al., 2013)

14. Myth 3: Large mech is more efficient
than small mech
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
4WT (80
HP) conv ag
4WT (80
HP) CA
2WT CA
Fuelconsumption(Lper
ha)
Planting
Discing
Ploughing
63
15
6
Fuel consumption 2.5 to 10 times lower
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
4WT
conv ag
4WT CA 2WT CA
Cost(US$)
2WT no till pllanter
4WT 3 row no till planter
4WT 3 row planter
4WT disc harrow
4WT 2 disc plough
2WT 12HP
4WT (60 HP)
35590
21900
2800
Entry point cost 8 to 13 times lower
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
4WT conv ag 4WT CA 2WT CA
Time(hoursperha)
5.65
0.85
2
Time needed to establish a crop divided by (0.4 to) 3

15. Myth 4: Small engines are totally new
to SSF in SSA countries
Supporting infrastructure (e.g. access
to finance, repair services, replacement parts,
fuel and lubricants) exists
1 grinding mills for 200 HH in Dombshawa 1 water pumps for 20 HH in Dombshawa
Large number of two- and three-wheelers

16. Gender aspects
 It is more about impact of
mechanization on gender relations
and dynamics than it is about the
machines being used by women
 Do we really need ‘women friendly’
machines?
 Gender dynamics
 Access to services (and extension, credit, etc)
 Control over resources
 Intra-household decision making
 Gender division of labour
 Values and assumptions (e.g. women expected
to work hard and long hours)

17. The paradox: high labour intensity,
but low demand articulation
 Women supply most of the
labour (e.g. in Western Kenya)
 Women’s labour burden does
not translate into articulation of
demand for mechanization
 Women have little control over
financial resources (especially in female-
headed households)
 Women have little decision-making
power (especially in male-headed households)
 Women’s labour is not valued, and
women’s high labour intensity is not
recognized
19%
32%
23%
27% Men
Women
Children
Hired

18. What tasks to mechanize in order
to reduce women’s labour burden?
 Direct positive effects
 Mechanization of transport and post-
harvest operations
 Indirect positive effects
 Men’s tasks that affect women’s tasks (e.g.
timeliness of planting affecting weeding intensity)
 Men’s tasks that require women to prepare
and transport food to men working in the
field
 Substitution of mechanization to animal
draught power, reducing the labour need
for livestock feeding and manure collection

19. Small mech = Appropriate mech
in most of SSA
 Minimum negative social impact
 Pro-poor (low entry point cost)
 Equitable access (cheap service)
 No need for land consolidation (2/3 of African farms
smaller than 2 ha; Alteri, 2009)
 No displacement of labour (mechanization of the
most power-intensive operations only)
 Minimimum negative environmental
impacts
 Climate smart (high fuel efficiency)
 Minimum soil degradation (lower footprint, minimum
tillage as a must in rainfed conditions)
 Biodiversity (maintenance of heterogeneity at plot – e.g.
trees – and landscape levels)

20. Small mech = Appropriate mech
in most of SSA

21. Commercializing small mech to
resource-constrained farmers
 Private rural service providers
 Only few farmers will be able to purchase
machines individually
 Not profitable for farmers to own machines
unless they provide services
 Multi-purpose uses (to maximize
mechanization use rates)
 Linking input BM to output BM (cash
flow)
 Bundling of services and products
(to reduce the cost of mechanization services)
 Possible need of a broker (weak
markets, vulnerable farmers)

22. Multipurpose use of 2WTs
 High demand for
mechanization, even at low
labour wage for:
 Transport
 Power-intensive operations that
require little human control (e.g.
shelling)
 Power-intensive operations that
are unprofitable when
unmechanized (e.g. water pumping)
 Entry points?

23. Several models…
1. Group owner/ operator model
(KEN, TAN)
2. Group owner/ individual operator
model (TAN)
3. Individual owner/ operator model
– local market, part time SP
(farmer to farmer) (ETH, KEN)
4. Individual owner/ operator model
– wider market, full time SP (ETH)
5. Contract farming – corporate
owner/ operator model (ZIM)
6. Dealer-led vertically integrated
model (KEN, ZIM)
7. Dealer-led collaborative model
(ETH)
8. Manufacturer-led vertically
integrated model (TAN)
9. Manufacturer-led collaborative
model (TAN)

24. Steps
1. Identifying tasks to be mechanized (low labor
productivity and/or high labor drudgery, likely demand)
2. Identifying/manufacturing suitable machines
3. Creating demand (incentives for commercial actors)
4. Building capacity and skills for mechanization
and business (machines owned by farmers at an early stage,
entrepreneurs specialized in hiring services later)
5. Linking to finance

25. Thank you!