Does CA pay? Experiences from the smallholder farming sector of Zimbabwe. Killain Mutiro


Published on

A presentation at the WCCA 2011 event in Brisbane.

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Does CA pay? Experiences from the smallholder farming sector of Zimbabwe. Killain Mutiro

  1. 1. Does Conservation Agriculture Pay?Experiences from the smallholder farmingsector of Zimbabwe Killian Mutiro, B. Mvumi, E. Keogh GRM International Protracted Relief Program (PRP) Zimbabwe
  2. 2. PRPMulti-donor programme, DFIDas main donorGoalExtreme poverty inZimbabwe reduced.PurposeDestitution prevented andlivelihoods of the poorestand most vulnerableprotected and promoted SUSTAINABLE IMPACT
  3. 3. Livelihood Social Protection WASH Other Interventions InterventionsAgricultural inputs Food Transfers Water points Community Based installation or Approaches rehabilitationCA farmer support Cash Transfers Latrines Capacity building of community basedHH gardens HBC Support PHHE training groupsCommunity gardensSmall livestockISALs ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
  4. 4. Targeted Households: Very Poor Vulnerable Households• Very poor with labour• Net exporters of labour (in exchange for grain, seed, draft power)• No draft power• Cant afford mineral fertilizers and seed• Late planting• Poor yields – less than 500kg/ha• Food insecure REDUCING VULNERABILITY
  5. 5. Targeted Household Profile Wealth Groups Characteristics Land area HH size Crops cultivated Livestock Holding cultivated 1ha-1.5ha Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas,Very Poor 6 2-6 chickens 0.1ha gardens Groundnuts, Sweet Potato Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas, 1.5ha-2ha 5-7 chickens, 1-3 goatsPoor 7 Cotton Groundnuts, Sweet 0.2ha gardens 1 cow Potato Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas, 2.25ha-2.75ha 8 chickens, 2-3 goats, 1-3Middle 7 Groundnuts, Sweet Potato, 0.2ha garden cattle, 1 ox, 0-2 donkeys Cotton Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas, 8ha-12ha 15+ chickens, 2+ Oxen, 4-6Better-off 4 Groundnuts, Sweet Potato, 0.6ha gardens cattle, 7+ goats, 2-4 donkeys Cotton % of population 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% REDUCING VULNERABILITY
  6. 6. Strategy: CA Training and Input Support Activity Achievement HH Agricultural 244,800 inputs CA farmer 113,658 supportCA Package(1) Permanent planting stations called potholesor basins established using hand hoes(2) Assistance with seed and fertilizer inputs(3) On-going training(4) Mechanization (credit for CA equipment) FLEXIBILITY
  7. 7. Key Questions1. Have we been able to address food insecurity among the very poor households supported by PRP?2. Is CA profitable for the very poor?3. What is the Return to donor investment in CA? POVERTY REDUCTION
  8. 8. Methodology1. A modified Cost Benefit Analysis- Donor and household investment- Market prices ( did not use economic prices)2. Gross Margin Analysis- Family labour3. Modelling of scenarios4. LIME monitoring POVERTY REDUCTION
  9. 9. Scenarios for ModelingCropping Scenario DescriptionNormal farmer practice (no access to Conventional ploughing, planted middraft power) to late December and a minimum of two weedingsOptimum farmer practice (with access Conventional ploughing soon afterto draft power) effective rainfall and two weedingsOptimum farmer practice and Conventional ploughing with 28kg ofmicrodosing N per haCA basins without fertilizer CA basins with two weeding and no fertilizerCA basins including fertilizer CA basins with two weeding and 28kg N per ha COMMUNITY DRIVEN
  10. 10. Results 2500 2000Yield Kg/ha 1500 1000 500 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 -500 Year Farmer Practice - 410 kg Optimum Farmer - 708 kg Basins No Fert -741 kg Optimum Farmer+ 28 kg N - 1257 kg Basins + 28 kg N - 1369 kgSource: ICRISAT INNOVATION
  11. 11. Results•73% yield increase by just planting in time(conventional)•81% yield increase by planting in time using basins•5% increase in yield by switching to basins (Opt farmer to basins, no fertilizer)•234% yield increase by adopting basins and fertilizer (28 kg N)•9% yield benefit for adopting basins from optimum farmer with fertilizer RESILIENCE
  12. 12. ResultsKey Indicator Farmer Inexperience Experienced Practice d CA Farmer CA Farmer (1-3 years)Return to labour 9.8 10.4 15.7(US cents perlabour hour)Cost of 239 146 126producing atonne of maizeKgs of grain per 0.79 1.11 1.37labour hourCost BenefitRatio at 12% 2.6discount rate SUSTAINABLE IMPACT
  13. 13. Food Sources120%100%80% Gifts Food aid60% Barter Purchase40% Payment in kind Livestock products Crops20% 0% Baseline Monitoring Baseline Monitoring Baseline Monitoring Poor Middle Better OffSOURCE: PRP LIME 2011 ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
  14. 14. Conclusion1. 80% of PRP supported CA farmers are food secure2. Lots of life changing stories on CA3. Good return on Donor Investment in CAHowever;1. Only 40% of the cultivated area is under CA. - What could be limiting expansion?- What is the most limiting input?- Can mechanization be the answer? Affordability of equipment by the very poor without credit support? (average annual cash incomes for the very poor are under USD500). ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
  15. 15. Conclusions2. Some principles not being adopted.- To what extend are we compromising yield benefits by not adopting all the principles?- Trade offs with other competing objectives – eg winter weeding and gardening?3. Affordability and availability of agricultural inputs.- If agricultural input assistance or subsidy is withdrawn can the very poor afford? Will they continue with CA?- Capacity of agro-delears and input suppliers? Additional information is available on our website PRO POOR APPROACHES