Impact and adoption of CA in Africa: a multi-scale and multi-stakeholder analysis. Marc Corbeels
IMPACT AND ADOPTION OFCONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN AFRICA:A MULTI-SCALE & MULTI-STAKEHOLDERANALYSIS Marc Corbeels, firstname.lastname@example.org 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
CA2Africa project: Analysing and Foreseeing its Impact - Comprehending its Adoption 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.www.CA2Africa.eu
Background 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
Competition for crop residues Farming God‟s way Surface residues = „God‟s blanket‟ Agro-ecological and socio-economic settings are no longer the structuring forces of agronomic practices
Low adoption rates in Africa 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 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
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) 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
CA2Africa project:a multi-stakeholder analysis Morocco and Tunisia Burkina Faso, Benin Kenya, Tanzania Zimbabwe, Malawi, Madagascar Zambia to share, assess and learn together with all stakeholders from these case studies on CA.
CA2Africa project: a multi-stakeholder analysis A multi-stakeholder innovation process Dynamic iterative innovation process Source: Wall, Ekboir, and Hobbs (2002) International Workshop on Policy Conservation Agriculture makers Uzbekistan. • an interactive approach linear approach of knowledge transfer • getting the right stakeholders on-board with their adequate role • key role of farmers & their associations
Conceptual framework: three scalesof analysis interactions Bio-economic models Qualitative assessment tools Crop growth models• 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
Major constraints for adoption/challengesfor research and development1. Yield benefits usually in the long term, while costs are immediate2. Strong trade-offs with other activities at the farm level and above3. 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
1. Yield benefits in the long term: meta-analysis 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
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
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 Homefields Aureole 3 Aureole 2 Aureole 3
2. Strong trade-offs of implementing CA Zimuto, Zimbabwe Shamva, Zimbabwe 400 400 350 350 300 300 labour (hours/ha) labour (hours/ha) 250 harvest 250 weeding 200 200 fertilization 150 150 planting 100 100 50 50 0 0 Conventional Conservation Conventional tillage Conservation tillage agriculture agriculture Source: Siziba (2008) PhD thesis, University of Hohenheim • 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
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‟
5. Need for tailoring CA Source: Rusinamhodzi, Corbeels, van Wijk, Rufino, Nyamangara and Giller (2011) Agronomy for Sustainable Development (in press) • Input-intensive nature of CA systems: more adapted for wealthier farmers
5. Need for tailoring CA: framework for ‘ideotyping’ Likelihood of adoption by farmers? Flat land Steep slopes Clayey soils Sandy/loam soils Poor productivity Abundant biomass Many livestock Few livestock Little capacity to invest Wealthier farmers who can afford inputs Unsecure access to land Stable land tenure arrangements Poor markets Good markets Poor institutional environment „Enabling‟ institutional environments
5. Need for tailoring CA 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?
In summary: 4 key points 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
5. Need for tailoring CA: framework for ‘ideotyping’Defining a socio-ecologicalniche for CA
4. Knowledge-intensive nature of implementing CA e l edg Yield/ Agronomic efficiency k now in re ase Inc CA A C Responsive soils B Poor, less-responsive soils Current Germplasm Germplasm Germplasm practice & fertilizer & fertilizer’ & fertilizer 8 kg nutrients/ha + Organic + Organic resource mgt resource mgt + Local adaptation Move towards ISFM ‘Full ISFM’ • 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
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.