This document discusses challenges and opportunities for conservation agriculture (CA) in Ethiopia. It identifies six main challenges: 1) competition with livestock for biomass, 2) lack of appropriate seeding implements, 3) increased pest incidence, 4) managing water, 5) managing nitrogen, and 6) converting retained resources into productivity gains. It then provides examples of ways to address each challenge through various techniques and innovations such as dual-purpose maize varieties, mechanized seeding, pest-suppressive landscapes, permanent raised beds, precision agriculture, and improved water and nitrogen management. The conclusion advocates for a more client-based, holistic approach that combines technologies across multiple scales through an iterative process.

1. Ethiopian pre-meeting of partners – 29 January 2015
Frédéric Baudron,
CIMMYT-Ethiopia
CA/SI in Ethiopia:
Overcoming challenges, taking advantage
of opportunities

2. Challenges vs. Prerequisites…
(see Sumberg, 2005)
 Challenges: variables that are endogenous to
the fit between an innovation and a specified
group of potential users
 Prerequisites: variables that are exogenous
 Drivers of CA adoption in the world:
 Constraint/cost of energy (= power × time) for
crop establishment
 Delayed planting (with consequences on yields)
 Water-limited yield
 Massive erosion problems (threatening medium term
productivity of farmland)
 These are prerequisites to the adoption of
CA (particularly by smallholders who are concerned by
short-term benefits)

3. Challenge 1: competition
with livestock for biomass

4. Dual-purpose maize variety
5 maize varieties
Similar grain and stover yields
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
SC-403 BH-140 Melkassa
2
MH_130 MHQ-138
Fibercontent
(gNDPkgDM-1)
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
SC-403 BH-140 Melkassa 2 MH_130 MHQ-138
Digestibility(%IVOMD)

5. Dual-purpose maize variety
90%
95%
100%
105%
110%
115%
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Fulfilmentoftheenergy
requirementoftheherd
0
2
4
6
8
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Maizestovertobeusedas
surfacemulch(tha-1)
90%140%
SC 403 BH 140 Melkassa 2 MHQ 138 MH 130

6. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Productioncost(KSHL-1)
Intake of maize residue (kg day-1)
(from Romney et al., 2004)
(from Baudron et al., 2014)
Providing incentives to increase
livestock productivity

7. 27%
33%
7%
15%
18% Oxen
Cows
Bulls
Heifers
Calves
Providing substitutes to the
current functions of livestock
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0 1 to
500
501 to
1000
1001
to
1500
1501
to
2000
2001
to
2500
2501
to
3000
3001
to
3500
3501
or
more
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0 1 to
500
501 to
1000
1001
to
1500
1501
to
2000
2001
to
2500
2501
to
3000
3001
to
3500
3501
or
more
3%
25%

8. Collective action to control
communal grazing
t = 4.68
P < 0.001
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Enclosed Open
Teffyield(tha-1)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Enclosed Open
Soilorganicmatter(%)
t = 2.86
P < 0.01

9. Challenge 2: lack of appropriate
implements to seed with minimum
soil disturbance

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

11. 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)

12. Yield advantage for small grain
0
2
4
6
8
10
Mechanical
seeding
Sowing by hand
Yield(t/ha)
Grain
Straw

13. Challenge 3: increased pest
incidence

14. Designing pest-suppressive
landscapes
0
5
10
1 10 30
Numberof
parasitoidwasps
capturedinyellow…
Distance to ensete field (m)
0
20
40
60
80
1 10 30
Numberofrove
beetlescapturedin
yellowpantraps
Distance to ensete field (m)
0
20
40
60
1 10 30
Numberofants
capturedinpitfall
traps
Distance to dense hedgerow (m)

15. Challenge 4: managing
water in CA

16.  Flexibility:
 Drainage during wet events
 Water harvesting during dry
events (tied)
 Improved field access for
mechanized agriculture
 Mechanical weed control
 N application when crop N
use efficiency is the highest
 Reduced seed rates and
logging for small grain crops
Permanent Raised Beds/Ridges

17. Challenge 5: managing
nitrogen in CA

18. Precision agriculture
Ciudad Obregon, 6 sites, 2001 and 2002
y = 506.42e175.91x
R2
= 0.78
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
INSEY
Grainyield,kg/ha
O226, 2001
P209, 2001
P227WR, 2002
P227, 2002
P226, 2002
Q212, 2002
(from Freeman and Sayre, pers. com.)
INSEY
YIELD
No N
limitation
ΔN = 2% × ΔYIELD

19. Challenge 6: converting
retained resources into
productivity gains

20. Increased water use efficiency
27
28
29
30
31
32
0-15 15-30 >30
Soilmoisture(%)
Depth (cm)
Sole maize CONV
Sole maize CA
27
28
29
30
31
32
0-15 15-30 >30
Soilmoisture(%)
Depth (cm)
Sole maize CONV
Maize-Bean CA
6.5 ± 1.2 t ha-1 6.5 ± 1.5 t ha-1 8.6 ± 2.2 t ha-1

21. Adaptation
(Re)Design
Scaling out
Evaluation
Training,knowledgesharing
Plot
Farm
Landscape
Community
Iterative, multi-scale approach

22. Conclusion
 Towards a more client-based approach?
 Focus on processes, not on technologies
 Combination of technologies: holistic, multi-
scale approach
 Pathway, ladder approach