www.CA2Africa.eu Marc Corbeels, Researcher - CIRAD <ul><li>Conservation  Agriculture :  A reality check for adopting CA ...
The underlying problem - poor soil fertility
<ul><li>Yield benefits usually in the long term, while costs are immediate </li></ul><ul><li>Strong trade-offs with other ...
Source: Rusinamhodzi, Corbeels, van Wijk, Rufino, Nyamangara and Giller (2010) Agronomy for Sustainable Development (in re...
<ul><li>Competing uses for crop residues, preventing their availability for mulching; </li></ul><ul><ul><li>feed is typica...
<ul><li>CA without herbicides increases labour demand for weeding </li></ul><ul><li>Implying a shift of work  </li></ul><u...
<ul><li>Limited access to inputs: no-till equipment, herbicides, and fertilizer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expensive </li></ul>...
4. Knowledge-intensive nature of implementing CA <ul><li>Implementing CA successfully requires understanding and/or making...
Yield/ Conservation agriculture: knowledge intensive CA Source: TSBF
<ul><li>Potential of CA is site- and farmer-specific </li></ul><ul><li>and thus depends on local bio-physical, socio-econo...
Farm(er)s are not all the same! Resource-rich farm Resource-poor farm
<ul><li>Flat land </li></ul><ul><li>Clayey soils </li></ul><ul><li>Poor productivity </li></ul><ul><li>Many livestock </li...
CA, a complex innovation process <ul><li>At each scale opportunities and constraints emerge that may favour or impede </li...
<ul><li>Non-linear, but interactive approach  </li></ul><ul><li>Getting the right stakeholders on-board with their adequat...
<ul><li>Research priorities for the future :  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>From a multi-stakeholder, multi-scale, and interdiscip...
CA in the world and in Africa <ul><li>CA has been widely adopted by farmers in North and South America,- and in parts of A...
CA2Africa scales of implementation and QAToCA Coverage Source : adapted from Corbeels et al (2009) CA2Africa DoW QAToCA
Objectives of QAToCA  <ul><li>Which region(s) have higher or lower CA adoption likelihood? </li></ul><ul><li>Which themati...
Objectives of QAToCA  <ul><li>Better understanding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>of the local situation (specific socio-economic, ...
Further use of outcomes <ul><li>Outcomes can be used as a basis for restitutions and discussions with stakeholders of the ...
Origin and development of QAToCA <ul><li>A combination of the following have assisted in the development of the tool: </li...
List of reviewed theories and concepts  <ul><li>Adoption theories; </li></ul><ul><li>Theory of psychological field; Lewin ...
Structure of QAToCA <ul><li>Questions grouped under specific thematic areas  </li></ul><ul><li>Consideration of the differ...
A Object of Adoption (CA) <ul><li>Issues relating to the characteristics of CA as an object of adoption. Subjective measur...
B Capacity of implementing organization   <ul><li>Targets the CA implementing organizations </li></ul><ul><li>checks on th...
C Attributes of Scaling up   <ul><li>Measurement of the diffusion strategy of the promoting organizations is the main focu...
D Political/Institutional framework at regional level   <ul><li>This theme is focused on subjectively checking on the poli...
E Political/Institutional framework at village level   <ul><li>Questions under this theme are focused on assessing issues ...
F Economic Conditions   <ul><li>The theme addresses issues related to  </li></ul><ul><li>Market availability and access </...
G Community’s attitude towards CA  <ul><li>Questions that fall in this theme check on the acceptability of CA by the commu...
Phase Selected diffusion theories Selected conceptual models Review of literature on CA adoption ScalA Tool: GTZ, Sustaine...
Overview Cont.
Evaluation Scale for QAToCA <ul><li>Three possible statements for each operational question </li></ul><ul><li>The scale fr...
Decision rule <ul><li>By choosing one figure from the scale [0, 1 or 2] and filling it in the empty box under (v), this im...
Example Step 1 Step 2 Step 5 2 Step 6 Step 3 Step 4
<ul><li>Who should fill in the tool to ensure a reasonable degree of scientific quality? </li></ul><ul><li>Ideally, one QA...
<ul><li>If possible, a person that is familiar with QAToCA should act as facilitator guiding the experts through the state...
Some results from East-Africa
Some results from East-Africa
Legend: +Supporting factor; - Hindering factor Some results from East-Africa
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Corbeels reality check for CA in Africa Project Breadbasket field workshop in Brazil 10 07_2011

26,863 views
26,807 views

Published on

Conservation Agriculture: A Reality Check for Adopting Conservation Agriculture in Africa by Marc Corbeels, Researcher, CIRAD for IFAD-supported Project Breadbasket south-south field workshop in Parana State, Brazil, 10 July, 2011

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
26,863
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,171
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Corbeels reality check for CA in Africa Project Breadbasket field workshop in Brazil 10 07_2011

  1. 1. www.CA2Africa.eu Marc Corbeels, Researcher - CIRAD <ul><li>Conservation Agriculture : A reality check for adopting CA in sub-saharan Africa </li></ul><ul><li>and </li></ul><ul><li>QAToCA </li></ul><ul><li>a Qualitative expert Assessment Tool for CA Adoption </li></ul>
  2. 2. The underlying problem - poor soil fertility
  3. 3. <ul><li>Yield benefits usually in the long term, while costs are immediate </li></ul><ul><li>Strong trade-offs with other activities at the farm level and above </li></ul><ul><li>Poor functioning of and access to (input) markets </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge-intensive nature of implementing CA </li></ul><ul><li>Need for ‘tailoring’ CA to the huge diversity of farmers, local practices and local / regional environments </li></ul>Major constraints for adoption/challenges for research and development with CA in Africa
  4. 4. Source: Rusinamhodzi, Corbeels, van Wijk, Rufino, Nyamangara and Giller (2010) Agronomy for Sustainable Development (in review) <ul><li>Yield benefits from CA are mostly realized in the long-term, - and when rotations are </li></ul><ul><li>applied </li></ul><ul><li>Causes of short-term yield reductions, and how to avoid them, requires further </li></ul><ul><li>research </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers often attribute higher value to immediate costs and benefits than those </li></ul><ul><li>realized or occurred in future </li></ul>1. Yield benefits in the long term: meta-analysis
  5. 5. <ul><li>Competing uses for crop residues, preventing their availability for mulching; </li></ul><ul><ul><li>feed is typically in short supply and takes preference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>especially under semi-arid conditions (where livestock is of great importance and biomass production is low) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>often non-exclusive products/communal land use: free grazing – local by-laws? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The reallocation of labour, especially to weeding </li></ul>2. Strong trade-offs of implementing CA
  6. 6. <ul><li>CA without herbicides increases labour demand for weeding </li></ul><ul><li>Implying a shift of work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>from mechanized to manual labour </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>from men to women </li></ul></ul>2. Strong trade-offs of implementing CA Source: Siziba (2008) PhD thesis, University of Hohenheim Zimuto, Zimbabwe Shamva, Zimbabwe
  7. 7. <ul><li>Limited access to inputs: no-till equipment, herbicides, and fertilizer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expensive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of effective input supply chain </li></ul></ul>3. Poor functioning of markets
  8. 8. 4. Knowledge-intensive nature of implementing CA <ul><li>Implementing CA successfully requires understanding and/or making use of ecological principles </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Full’ CA systems require major simultaneous changes in soil/crop management </li></ul><ul><li>CA requires significant capacity building (farmers, extension, research) </li></ul><ul><li>As a results- adoption is unlikely to be ‘immediate’ </li></ul>
  9. 9. Yield/ Conservation agriculture: knowledge intensive CA Source: TSBF
  10. 10. <ul><li>Potential of CA is site- and farmer-specific </li></ul><ul><li>and thus depends on local bio-physical, socio-economic and institutional conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Major challenge for research community: assess where, which and for whom CA practices may best fit? </li></ul>5. Need for tailoring CA
  11. 11. Farm(er)s are not all the same! Resource-rich farm Resource-poor farm
  12. 12. <ul><li>Flat land </li></ul><ul><li>Clayey soils </li></ul><ul><li>Poor productivity </li></ul><ul><li>Many livestock </li></ul><ul><li>Little capacity to invest </li></ul><ul><li>Unsecure access to land </li></ul><ul><li>Poor markets </li></ul><ul><li>Poor institutional environment </li></ul><ul><li>Steep slopes </li></ul><ul><li>Sandy/loam soils </li></ul><ul><li>Abundant biomass </li></ul><ul><li>Few livestock </li></ul><ul><li>Wealthier farmers who can afford inputs </li></ul><ul><li>Stable land tenure arrangements </li></ul><ul><li>Good markets </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Enabling’ institutional environments </li></ul>Likelihood of adoption by farmers? 5. Need for tailoring CA: framework for ‘ideotyping’
  13. 13. CA, a complex innovation process <ul><li>At each scale opportunities and constraints emerge that may favour or impede </li></ul><ul><li>the adoption of CA </li></ul><ul><li>Technical performance (yield) is clearly but one of the determinants of adoption </li></ul><ul><li>CA is a successful ‘innovation’ when fully embedded in contexts of the 3 scales </li></ul><ul><li>A multi-scale process </li></ul>
  14. 14. <ul><li>Non-linear, but interactive approach </li></ul><ul><li>Getting the right stakeholders on-board with their adequate role </li></ul><ul><li>Key role of farmers & their associations </li></ul>Source: Wall, Ekboir, and Hobbs (2002) International Workshop on Conservation Agriculture Uzbekistan. <ul><li>A multi-stakeholder innovation process </li></ul>CA, a complex innovation process
  15. 15. <ul><li>Research priorities for the future : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>From a multi-stakeholder, multi-scale, and interdisciplinary perspective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design of CA practices adapted to local conditions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analyze and identify ex-ante opportune situations for implementing CA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analyze and solve trade-offs in allocation of farm resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nurture the necessary CA networks and CA innovation systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design market support policies that favor the emergence of CA </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Many on-going research project tackling some of these issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CIMMYT, ICRISAT, EMBRAPA, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Many projects in which CIRAD is involved: CA 2 AFRICA and ABACO (EU), PEPITES (ANR-France), SCAP (IFAD), PAMPA (AFD) </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. CA in the world and in Africa <ul><li>CA has been widely adopted by farmers in North and South America,- and in parts of Asia </li></ul><ul><li>Much less success with smallholders in Africa despite > 2 decades of research and development investments </li></ul>Source: Kassam, Friedrich, Shaxson and Pretty (2009) International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7(4) 292-320
  17. 17. CA2Africa scales of implementation and QAToCA Coverage Source : adapted from Corbeels et al (2009) CA2Africa DoW QAToCA
  18. 18. Objectives of QAToCA <ul><li>Which region(s) have higher or lower CA adoption likelihood? </li></ul><ul><li>Which thematic area within the CA innovation system or component of a particular case study/project is likely to be influencing the adoption status? </li></ul><ul><li>What are some of the key determinants of the observed adoption status? </li></ul>
  19. 19. Objectives of QAToCA <ul><li>Better understanding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>of the local situation (specific socio-economic, political and institutional frame conditions etc.) and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the contextual and regional issues to assist in the understanding and foreseeing of CA adoption? </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Further use of outcomes <ul><li>Outcomes can be used as a basis for restitutions and discussions with stakeholders of the case studies/projects as this will assist in </li></ul><ul><ul><li>providing new insights into the specific CA development and diffusion programs and projects, and in </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>providing entry points for planning /adjusting some of the on-going and future CA-related actions. </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Origin and development of QAToCA <ul><li>A combination of the following have assisted in the development of the tool: </li></ul><ul><li>Reviewed selected adoption theories and conceptual models of innovation systems (see WP2 report D2.2) </li></ul><ul><li>Inspiration from the ScalA –Tool: Tool for the assessment of sustainability, climate relevance and scaling-up potential of project approaches (Bringe et al (2006) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>used by GTZ (http://www.gtz.de/) and Sustainet ( http://wwww.sustainet.org/ ) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CA2Africa experts evaluation and feedback (ZALF, CIRAD, CSIC, WU experts) </li></ul><ul><li>Pretesting and feedback in CA2Africa 1st regional workshops with CA experts and stakeholders (Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Tunisia, Madagascar, Zimbabwe) </li></ul>
  22. 22. List of reviewed theories and concepts <ul><li>Adoption theories; </li></ul><ul><li>Theory of psychological field; Lewin (1947) </li></ul><ul><li>Theory of Behaviour modification; Hruschka (1994) </li></ul><ul><li>Diffusion of Innovation Theory; Rogers (2003) </li></ul><ul><li>The Diffusion Theory: Hohenheim Diffusion Concept; Hoffmann (2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Theory of Planned Behaviour; Ajzen (1991) </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamics of CA Adoption; Triomphe et al (2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Conceptual models; </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation System Approach: ISA; Lundvall (2004); Mytelka (2000); World Bank (2006) </li></ul><ul><li>The Innovation Policy Terrain; OECD (1997) </li></ul><ul><li>A Generic National Innovation System; OECD (1997) </li></ul><ul><li>Elements of National Innovative Capacity; Porter and Stern (2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Actor Network Theory (model); Callon and Latour following Law and Hassard (1999) </li></ul><ul><li>[See deliverable report D2.2 for WP2 of CA2Africa: An inventory of bio-physical, socioeconomic and conceptual models of innovation systems for assessment of agricultural (Innovative) practices] </li></ul>
  23. 23. Structure of QAToCA <ul><li>Questions grouped under specific thematic areas </li></ul><ul><li>Consideration of the differerent scales of implementation of a project from Farm level to Village/Local and Regional levels: </li></ul><ul><li>A Object of Adoption (CA) (ObjofAdoptFarmVillLev) </li></ul><ul><li>B Capacity of implementing organisation (CapacityofImplOrgVillRegLev) </li></ul><ul><li>C Attributes of Scaling up (AttrOfScalingUpVillRegLev) </li></ul><ul><li>D Political/Institutional framework at Regional Level (PolInstFramRegLev) </li></ul><ul><li>E Political/Institutional framework at Village level (PolInstFramVillLev) </li></ul><ul><li>F Economic Conditions (EconCondVillRegLev) </li></ul><ul><li>G Community’s attitude towards CA (CommunityAttitVillRegLev) </li></ul>
  24. 24. A Object of Adoption (CA) <ul><li>Issues relating to the characteristics of CA as an object of adoption. Subjective measurement of issues such as: </li></ul><ul><li>Trialability of CA, complexity, compatibility with societal norms and customs, observability </li></ul><ul><li>Divisibility </li></ul><ul><li>Financial requirements of CA </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge intensive nature, </li></ul><ul><li>Labour requirement, </li></ul><ul><li>Rate of returns (profitability) </li></ul><ul><li>Risk </li></ul><ul><li>Influence of CA on natural resources, </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers prestige and autonomy </li></ul><ul><li>CA input </li></ul>
  25. 25. B Capacity of implementing organization <ul><li>Targets the CA implementing organizations </li></ul><ul><li>checks on the overall philosophy of the organization </li></ul><ul><li>the type and quality of staff </li></ul><ul><li>leadership quality </li></ul><ul><li>connectivity of the institution or the level of network </li></ul>
  26. 26. C Attributes of Scaling up <ul><li>Measurement of the diffusion strategy of the promoting organizations is the main focus of this theme </li></ul><ul><li>Overall objective of diffusion </li></ul><ul><li>Organization’s level of documentation </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring and evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Type and quality of communication channels; organization’s level of involvement in capacity building </li></ul><ul><li>use of incentives in stimulating adoption </li></ul>
  27. 27. D Political/Institutional framework at regional level <ul><li>This theme is focused on subjectively checking on the political or institutional frame conditions of the region </li></ul><ul><li>Level of political stability </li></ul><ul><li>Tolerance level of the civil society towards CA </li></ul><ul><li>The system of administration and its effect on CA promotion </li></ul><ul><li>Nature of administrative set up </li></ul><ul><li>Type of policies as well as their possible influence on the CA adoption </li></ul>
  28. 28. E Political/Institutional framework at village level <ul><li>Questions under this theme are focused on assessing issues relating to the state of local level governance structures and institutions with their likely influence on CA adoption </li></ul><ul><li>Compatibility of CA as an emerging innovation with local customs and traditions </li></ul><ul><li>Issues of land access </li></ul><ul><li>Ownership </li></ul>
  29. 29. F Economic Conditions <ul><li>The theme addresses issues related to </li></ul><ul><li>Market availability and access </li></ul><ul><li>Availability of basic infrastructures such as farm to market roads and irrigation possibilities </li></ul><ul><li>Level of other economic actors’ engagement in CA promotion </li></ul><ul><li>Availability of quality control measures and implementation </li></ul>
  30. 30. G Community’s attitude towards CA <ul><li>Questions that fall in this theme check on the acceptability of CA by the community, as well as village leaders and influential persons in the decision making process of the village </li></ul><ul><li>Level of young farmers’ commitment to CA is further checked here as well as a measure of the dynamic and innovative level of the CA community under consideration </li></ul>
  31. 31. Phase Selected diffusion theories Selected conceptual models Review of literature on CA adoption ScalA Tool: GTZ, Sustainet, ZALF 1 1 2 3 Conceptual background and philosophy Question classification and result aggregation Analysis and visualisation of results Thematic Qualitative Assessment of CA Oobject of Adoption (CA) Capacity of implementing Institution Attributes of dissemination strategy Political/Institutional framework VL Regional Leve l Political/Institutional framework RL CA products & inputs Market cond. Perception of community A B C D E F G 2 Phase <ul><li>Total thematic Scores </li></ul><ul><li>Unweighted thematic %s </li></ul><ul><li>Weighted thematic %s </li></ul><ul><li>Total relative likelihood </li></ul>Results table Visualisation 3 Phase QAToCA Qualitative expert Assessment Tool for CA Adoption <ul><li>Graphs </li></ul><ul><li>Spider diagrams </li></ul><ul><li>Bar charts </li></ul><ul><li>etc </li></ul>
  32. 32. Overview Cont.
  33. 33. Evaluation Scale for QAToCA <ul><li>Three possible statements for each operational question </li></ul><ul><li>The scale from 0-2 indicates the strength of the suggested statements with respect to their influence on the likelihood of adoption </li></ul><ul><li>where: </li></ul><ul><li>0 = not influential, has no/negative effect on adoption likelihood </li></ul><ul><li>1 = little influence, has limited positive effect on adoption, </li></ul><ul><li>2 = highest influence, has maximum positive effect on adoption likelihood </li></ul><ul><li>N = if non of the statements is appropriate [including a comment] </li></ul>
  34. 34. Decision rule <ul><li>By choosing one figure from the scale [0, 1 or 2] and filling it in the empty box under (v), this implies you have agreed that the statement in (iv) represented by the selected figure (iV) is closest to the observed situation in your region. </li></ul><ul><li>For instance </li></ul><ul><li>under “ A_ CA as an object of adoption (ObjectofAdopFarmVillLev ), the operational question for A1 is “ Are farmers able to meet the financial cost of CA in your case study ?” . </li></ul><ul><li>The indicator to be assessed for this question is “ Cost of CA and Liquidity issue ” . </li></ul><ul><li>The scenario statements to choose from include; </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ There are sufficient own financial resources by average farmers to cover cost” [2], </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ There are limited own financial resources but credit institutions are available and farmers can assess loans” [1] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Credit institutions are absent and farmers need major financial assistance from the promoting organisations [0] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If non of the statements is approppriete [N and a comment] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>By selecting statement &quot;2&quot; (” There is sufficient own financial resources by farmers to cover cost&quot;) means that the respondant considers this is the statement most closely reflecting the observed situation in the specific region or case under consideration. </li></ul>
  35. 35. Example Step 1 Step 2 Step 5 2 Step 6 Step 3 Step 4
  36. 36. <ul><li>Who should fill in the tool to ensure a reasonable degree of scientific quality? </li></ul><ul><li>Ideally, one QAToCA file should be filled in by several experts for one case study, assuming that no single expert has knowledge about all levels considered by the tool. The best selection would be </li></ul><ul><li>a researcher, </li></ul><ul><li>an extensionist/promoter of CA, </li></ul><ul><li>a farmer (with appropriate knowledge), who adopted , and </li></ul><ul><li>if possible a farmer, who adopted, but stopped practicing, or who considered adoption, but then didn't go for it . </li></ul>Target group for QAToCA
  37. 37. <ul><li>If possible, a person that is familiar with QAToCA should act as facilitator guiding the experts through the statements </li></ul><ul><li>The perfect venue would be a workshop-like meeting with enough time for discussions (approx. half a day). </li></ul><ul><li>Possible discussions should be documented to reflect diverting opinions </li></ul><ul><li>ONE file per CASE STUDY! </li></ul>Target group for QAToCA
  38. 38. Some results from East-Africa
  39. 39. Some results from East-Africa
  40. 40. Legend: +Supporting factor; - Hindering factor Some results from East-Africa

×