Socio-economic and institutional
imperatives of Conservation Agriculture
adoption by smallholder farmers in Africa
Regiona...
The utility of socio-economic evaluations
 To make good recommendations for farmers, researchers
must be able to evaluate...
Evaluation of CA Technologies
Farmers consider a number of factors before adopting new

technologies
Due to scarcity, fa...
Financial analysis: Partial budgets
Looks at income and expense items affected by the

proposed change
Will the proposed...
Estimating costs
Farmers compare the gross benefits of each treatment, but they

will want to take account of the differe...
What drives CA adoption by SH farmers?
Increased productivity
More and stable yields

Economic benefits
Reduction in p...
Fundamentals of adoption (CA)
• Adoption refers to an individual’s decision to use a new

practice on a regular basis.
• A...
Levels (category) of adoption
Category of adopters

Full adopters
Whole package (?)
Significant area (?)
Consistently over...
Incidence vs intensity of adoption
An evaluation of technology adoption by farmers

requires the assessment of the follow...
Key determinants of adoption

1.Technology attributes

2. Farmer characteristics

Compatibility issues

Age, education, we...
Peculiarities of CA

Knowledge intensive

The intellectual cost of adopting CA may be

considerably high because it requ...
CA attributes cont…
Management intensive:
CA adoption implies a paradigm shift that requires

changes to the mgt of the ...
Implications for adoption
CA adoption is a gradual process, not an

instantaneous event
Most farmers adopt CA partially ...
Incremental adoption
CA adoption and impact pathways
Labor saving and spreading
 Reallocates land prep to the dry

season
 Redistributes heav...
Unpacking dynamics of labor use in CA

Is CA labor intensive?

Higher yields under CA come with increased input use

(ri...
Labor subsides over time: Haggblade (2009)
Labor dynamics cont…

Returns to labor = 3.73, 4.34 & 1.92 respectively
Maize production per 1 ha (ICRISAT,2007)
Variable

1st year CA 2+ yrs CA

CP

Maize yield (kg/ha)

1520

1780

368

Gross ...
Seasonality issues (labor)
Seasonality of food availability
Engaging labor effort in off-farm work during the off-

seas...
Transitory/seasonal Food Insecurity

Usually
Usually
seek for
seek for
off-farm
off-farm
work
work

CFU (2010)
Socio-economic aspects of CA adoption
Socio-economic factors determine the ultimate decision to

adopt
The appropriatene...
Issues in adoption & upscaling
Rotation/intercrop
Food security concerns
Availability of markets for

other crops
Avail...
Facilitating CA adoption
An understanding of the processes leading to the adoption

of new technologies by SHs facilitate...
How do we get to know the farmer circumstances?
Baseline surveys important to unpack issues of:
Key agricultural/livelih...
Common features of SH farmers
(obtainable from baselines)

 Product markets, credit markets, information markets, land

m...
Implications for techno devt & dissemination
The technology must fit into the existing farming system

and the broad live...
Emerging approaches
Farmer-managed demonstration plots
Review of farmers’ experiences with CA –which

components adopted...
Innovation platforms: CIMMYT
Innovation History
Promotes institutional learning and reflection on the

adoption process

Allows people concerned to r...
Thank you
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Socio economic and institutional imperatives of conservation agriculture adoption by smallholder farmers in africa

237

Published on

Understanding the Socioeconomic, Cultural and Institutional dynamics of technology adoption is essential for the design, and promotion of Agricultural Technologies and achieve widespread adoption.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
237
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Socio economic and institutional imperatives of conservation agriculture adoption by smallholder farmers in africa"

  1. 1. Socio-economic and institutional imperatives of Conservation Agriculture adoption by smallholder farmers in Africa Regional Training of Trainers Course for Extension Personnel in Southern Africa Harare, Zimbabwe July 2010] Mutyasira Vine vinemutyasira@yahoo.com
  2. 2. The utility of socio-economic evaluations  To make good recommendations for farmers, researchers must be able to evaluate alternative technologies from the farmers' point of view; Demonstrate the actual impacts of the technology on rural livelihoods Identify best and more appropriate options under specific conditions Facilitate in decision making (resource allocation) To provide feedback for further research Synthesize a body of knowledge that facilitates adaptation and adoption of CA in smallholder farming systems
  3. 3. Evaluation of CA Technologies Farmers consider a number of factors before adopting new technologies Due to scarcity, farmers consider technologies that yield the greatest returns to time and money invested in farming Economic viability is, however, one of the many pillars and is a necessary but not a sufficient indicator in technology adoption. Farmers consider other factors such as the risks associated with alternative technologies. Hence the need to include farmers’ perspectives on the costs and benefits associated with each technology Also need to consider the broad socio-economic aspects of each technology/practice
  4. 4. Financial analysis: Partial budgets Looks at income and expense items affected by the proposed change Will the proposed change be more/less profitable that the status quo? Based on the principle that the new techno will affect one or more of the following areas Increase in income Reduction or elimination of costs Increase in costs Reduction or elimination of income CA
  5. 5. Estimating costs Farmers compare the gross benefits of each treatment, but they will want to take account of the different costs as well. What are the additional input cost or labor cost or animal traction costs? Need only be concerned by those costs that differ across the treatments or the costs that vary. Example  Labor use for weeding  Fertilizers if we use different rates  Herbicides, herbicide application costs  Land preparation costs-animal traction  Harvesting costs which varies with quantities harvested The total costs that vary for each treatment is the sum of the individual costs that vary
  6. 6. What drives CA adoption by SH farmers? Increased productivity More and stable yields Economic benefits Reduction in production (labor/input) costs Increased revenues (higher yields) However, experience has shown that farmers’ adoption decision is not entirely influenced by the observed productivity or monetary benefits of CA
  7. 7. Fundamentals of adoption (CA) • Adoption refers to an individual’s decision to use a new practice on a regular basis. • Adoption follows sequential and /or over lapping stages of: – Awareness – Evaluation – Trial – Final Adoption • Farmers may not achieve full adoption of a package of CA in the short run because it often takes time for farmers to experiment with one or more components of the package •
  8. 8. Levels (category) of adoption Category of adopters Full adopters Whole package (?) Significant area (?) Consistently over time (?) Partial adopters / experimenters Components Not a significant area Inconsistent / intermittent Dis-Adopters Tested whole or part of package as experimenters Discontinued
  9. 9. Incidence vs intensity of adoption An evaluation of technology adoption by farmers requires the assessment of the following: What kind of technology (which components)? How fast is the technology adopted (rate of adoption)? How is the new technology impacting on the farming system (impact assessment)? How widely is the technology used on the farm (intensity)? The incidence of adoption indicates whether a farmer has used a technology (yes/no) The intensity explains the degree of use of a technology (e.g. area)
  10. 10. Key determinants of adoption 1.Technology attributes 2. Farmer characteristics Compatibility issues Age, education, wealth 3.Institutional factors Tenure, credit, markets
  11. 11. Peculiarities of CA Knowledge intensive The intellectual cost of adopting CA may be considerably high because it requires a better understanding of farm systems, cropping systems, or chemicals. Adopting CA imposes a need for increased learning Does not yield immediate benefits Unlike high-yielding varieties, CA benefits are seldom visible in the short run Decisions to adopt are therefore investment decisions, based on expected future benefit stream
  12. 12. CA attributes cont… Management intensive: CA adoption implies a paradigm shift that requires changes to the mgt of the entire system It is generally mgt intensive and require great commitment to constant learning It is a package of interrelated components Specific components of the CA system tend to be environment-specific Farmers usually evaluate specific components (partial vs full adoption)
  13. 13. Implications for adoption CA adoption is a gradual process, not an instantaneous event Most farmers adopt CA partially and incrementally Establish long term monitoring of adopters to better understand the adoption process and diffusion pathways
  14. 14. Incremental adoption
  15. 15. CA adoption and impact pathways Labor saving and spreading  Reallocates land prep to the dry season  Redistributes heavy labor requirements out of the peak planting period  Enhances timely planting  Saved labor facilitates diversification into cash crops e.g. tomato, paprika  Diversification fills the hunger gap (enhanced nutrition)  More time for value addition/ post harvest processing (job creation)
  16. 16. Unpacking dynamics of labor use in CA Is CA labor intensive? Higher yields under CA come with increased input use (risk considerations) Initial adoption of CA requires increased use of labor for mulching, manure application and weeding 1st year CA farmers spend double the labor requirements to produce a hectare of maize compared to CP (ICRISAT, 2007) Year -round requirement for labor may also give rise to the perception that CA is labor intensive Labor demand gradually decreases with time e.g. labor for weed control declines with successive weeding
  17. 17. Labor subsides over time: Haggblade (2009)
  18. 18. Labor dynamics cont… Returns to labor = 3.73, 4.34 & 1.92 respectively
  19. 19. Maize production per 1 ha (ICRISAT,2007) Variable 1st year CA 2+ yrs CA CP Maize yield (kg/ha) 1520 1780 368 Gross revenue (@$0.40/kg) 608 712 147 Total labor units (dys) 144.56 148.27 68.61 Total labor costs (@0.88) 127.22 130.47 60.38 TVC 196.30 199.55 91.78 Gross margin ($/ha) 411.71 512.45 71.23 Costs per kg 0.13 0.11 0.25 Returns to labor ($/dy) 3.73 4.34 1.92
  20. 20. Seasonality issues (labor) Seasonality of food availability Engaging labor effort in off-farm work during the off- season to meet immediate consumption requirements implies raises the opportunity cost of labor Case of SRI in Madagascar (Moser and Barret, 2002) Low-external input rice production method High yield potential with no chemical/mechanical inputs Introduced during the off-season Seasonal liquidity and family labor constraints hinder adoption Casual labor for day wages in the rice fields of other farmers provides coping strategy during the hungry season
  21. 21. Transitory/seasonal Food Insecurity Usually Usually seek for seek for off-farm off-farm work work CFU (2010)
  22. 22. Socio-economic aspects of CA adoption Socio-economic factors determine the ultimate decision to adopt The appropriateness of a technology for smallholder farmers is not necessarily and entirely defined by its costsaving abilities Economic viability is a necessary but NOT sufficient condition for uptake by farmers Studies show that there has not been widespread adoption of CA practices, < 1% among SH farmers (Waddington,2003) Major reason cited being the failure to appreciate the constraints faced by smallholder farmers for whom they are intended
  23. 23. Issues in adoption & upscaling Rotation/intercrop Food security concerns Availability of markets for other crops Availability of seed/chemical inputs for other crops Social aspects of crop production (Senegal case) Siziba (2008)
  24. 24. Facilitating CA adoption An understanding of the processes leading to the adoption of new technologies by SHs facilitates the planning and implementation of successful research and extension programs. farm-household factors: age, education, and personal characteristics of the household head; ownership of livelihood assets Village/ community level factors help to explain: -Why was there widespread adoption in one village but not others in the same general location? -Why did one project lead to apparently successful adoption, but another, following the same procedures and promoting the same technologies, result in failure?
  25. 25. How do we get to know the farmer circumstances? Baseline surveys important to unpack issues of: Key agricultural/livelihood activities Existing farming technologies (draught power) Main production enterprises (crop/livestock) Main sources of income Resource endowments (wealth) Access to markets (factor/product) Gender dimensions Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) Activity undertaken by a multidisciplinary team to obtain new information about rural life Includes key informant interviews, focus-group interviews etc
  26. 26. Common features of SH farmers (obtainable from baselines)  Product markets, credit markets, information markets, land markets and labor market are weak or even non-existent;  Little access to financial capital  Subsistence remain the dominant farming strategy  They are risk averse  Manage mixed crop/livestock systems  Rely to a large degree on family members for hand labor.  Have close community linkages with weaker links outside the community.  Have less formal education than large-scale commercial farmers  Often are situated in marginal areas with respect to rainfall and topography  Often have precarious land tenure
  27. 27. Implications for techno devt & dissemination The technology must fit into the existing farming system and the broad livelihood systems, matching the strategy developed by the family Participatory Technology Development (PTD): the active engagement and involvement of beneficiaries in decision making at every stage of technology development is vital More participatory, community-based methodologies are needed in technology development and dissemination
  28. 28. Emerging approaches Farmer-managed demonstration plots Review of farmers’ experiences with CA –which components adopted or disadopted & why Farmers’ perceptions and expectations through focus group discussions Farmer exchange visits Community awareness meeting Field tours Innovation histories
  29. 29. Innovation platforms: CIMMYT
  30. 30. Innovation History Promotes institutional learning and reflection on the adoption process Allows people concerned to reflect on their actions and how better results might be achieved in the future Enables us to understand the dynamics of adoption process and to learn about farmers’ perceptions of the constraints they face along the way Also portrays the gradual nature of CA adoption
  31. 31. Thank you

×