Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:49:30.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pathways to intensify the utilization of conservation agriculture by African smallholder farmers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2018

Brendan Brown ,
Ian Nuberg  and
Rick Llewellyn
Brendan Brown*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, Australia CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Adelaide, Australia
Ian Nuberg
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, Australia
Rick Llewellyn
Affiliation:
CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Adelaide, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Brendan Brown, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals are to be achieved, African smallholder farmers will need to embrace new technologies such as conservation agriculture (CA) in order to increase both their productivity and sustainability. Yet farmers have been slow to embrace CA and when they have, they are inclined to do so at limited intensities. Current investigations tend to apply binary frameworks that classify all utilizations as ‘adoption’, and do not consider in depth the farmer perspectives and contextual realities that affect farmer decision-making on the intensity of use. We analyze 57 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with farmers who implement CA to understand why they tend to do so at limited intensities and what is required to intensify their CA activities, both for them and others within their communities. While most farmers reported substantial yield benefits from using CA, this was mainly related to input intensification (particularly herbicides) and was limited by constrained financial resources. Overall, the intensity of CA utilization was constrained due to farmer-identified constraints across their physical, financial, human and informational resources. Because of this, stagnation at low intensities of CA utilization was common, reflecting the assumed transformational adoption pathway for CA and the focus on binary adoption, as opposed to modification and the broader utilization process. To overcome this, we propose a more nuanced transitional approach focused on the intensification of four broader principles of CA over time [i.e., (1) strategic tillage, (2) soil protection, (3) crop diversification and (4) input management] as opposed to the strict packaging of CA practices. Such a change in approach will foster increased positive perceptions within the community and allow farmers to locally adapt CA to build their own way toward complete CA utilization and with less need for subsidization.

Keywords

Adoption gapAfricaagricultural transformationfarming systems researchqualitative assessmenttechnology adoption
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , December 2019 , pp. 558 - 570
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, JA and D'Souza, S (2014) From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: a literature review of conservation agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in Southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187, 116–132.Google Scholar
Arslan, A, McCarthy, N, Lipper, L, Asfaw, S and Cattaneo, A (2014) Adoption and intensity of adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187, 72–86.Google Scholar
Bai, ZG, Dent, DL, Olsson, L and Schaepman, ME (2008) Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use and Management 24, 223–234.Google Scholar
Baudron, F, Mwanza, HM, Triomphe, B and Bwalya, M (2007) Conservation agriculture in Zambia: a case study of southern province. Nairobi: African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Baudron, F, Jaleta, M, Okitoi, O and Tegegn, A (2014) Conservation agriculture in African mixed crop-livestock systems: expanding the niche. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187, 171–182.Google Scholar
Bekele, W and Drake, L (2003) Soil and water conservation decision behavior of subsistence farmers in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of the Hunde-Lafto area. Ecological Economics 46, 437–451.Google Scholar
Brown, B, Llewellyn, R and Nuberg, I (2018) Why do information gaps persist in African smallholder agriculture? Perspectives from farmers lacking exposure to conservation agriculture. Agricultural Education and Extension (in press). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2018.1429283.Google Scholar
Brown, B, Nuberg, I and Llewellyn, R (2017a) Negative evaluation of conservation agriculture: perspectives from African smallholder farmers. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15(4), 467–481.Google Scholar
Brown, B, Nuberg, I and Llewellyn, R (2017b) Stepwise frameworks for understanding the utilisation of conservation agriculture in Africa. Agricultural Systems 153, 11–22.10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.012Google Scholar
Browne, K (2005) ‘Snowball sampling’: using social networks to research non-heterosexual women. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1), 47–60.Google Scholar
Chambers, R (2006) Poverty unperceived: traps, biases and agenda, IDS Working Paper 270, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex.Google Scholar
Corbeels, M, de Graaff, J, Ndah, TH, Penot, E, Baudron, F, Naudin, K, Andrieu, N, Chirat, G, Schuler, J, Nyagumbo, I, Rusinamhodzi, L, Traore, K, Mzoba, HD and Adolwa, IS (2014) Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: a multi-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187, 155–170.10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.011Google Scholar
Diagne, A (2009) Technological Change in Smallholder Agriculture: Bridging the Adoption Gap by Understanding its Source, Agriculture for Development. UC Berkeley. Available at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1wf5q4bm.Google Scholar
Erenstein, O, Sayre, K, Wall, P, Hellin, J and Dixon, J (2012) Conservation agriculture in maize- and wheat-based systems in the (sub)tropics: lessons from adaptation initiatives in South Asia, Mexico, and Southern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 36, 180–206.Google Scholar
FAO (2014) What Is Conservation Agriculture? Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Available at http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/1a.html.Google Scholar
FAO (2016) FAOSTAT. In FAO (ed.). FAO. Available at http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E.Google Scholar
Fuglie, KO, Wang, SL and Ball, VE (2012) Productivity Growth in Agriculture: An International Perspective. Wallingford, UK: CABI. doi: 10.1079/9781845939212.0000.Google Scholar
Giller, KE, Witter, E, Corbeels, M and Tittonell, P (2009) Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crops Research 114, 23–34.Google Scholar
Giller, KE, Andersson, JA, Corbeels, M, Kirkegaard, J, Mortensen, D, Erenstein, O and Vanlauwe, B (2015) Beyond conservation agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science 6, 870.10.3389/fpls.2015.00870Google Scholar
Glover, D, Sumberg, J and Andersson, JA (2016) The adoption problem; or why we still understand so little about technological change in African agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture 45, 3–6.Google Scholar
Google Maps (2017) Africa—Google Maps. Google. Available at https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Africa/.Google Scholar
Gowing, JW and Palmer, M (2008) Sustainable agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa: the case for a paradigm shift in land husbandry. Soil Use and Management 24, 92–99.10.1111/j.1475-2743.2007.00137.xGoogle Scholar
Grabowski, PP and Kerr, JM (2013) Resource constraints and partial adoption of conservation agriculture by hand-hoe farmers in Mozambique. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 12, 37–53.Google Scholar
Guto, SN, Pypers, P, Vanlauwe, B, de Ridder, N and Giller, KE (2011) Tillage and vegetative barrier effects on soil conservation and short-term economic benefits in the Central Kenya highlands. Field Crops Research 122, 85–94.10.1016/j.fcr.2011.03.002Google Scholar
Jones, PG and Thornton, PK (2003) The potential impacts of climate change on maize production in Africa and Latin America in 2055. Global Environmental Change 13, 51–59.Google Scholar
Kathage, J, Kassie, M, Shiferaw, B and Qaim, M (2015) Big constraints or small returns? Explaining nonadoption of hybrid maize in Tanzania. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 38, 113–131.Google Scholar
Kirkegaard, JA, Conyers, MK, Hunt, JR, Kirkby, CA, Watt, M and Rebetzke, GJ (2014) Sense and nonsense in conservation agriculture: principles, pragmatism and productivity in Australian mixed farming systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187, 133–145.Google Scholar
Lele, U, Pretty, J, Terry, E and Trigo, E (2010) Transforming Agricultural Research for Development, Report for the Global Conference on Agricultural Research (GCARD). Italy: Global Forum on Agricultural Research Rome.Google Scholar
Lundy, M, Pittelkow, C, Linquist, B, Liang, X, van Groenigen, K, Lee, J, Six, J, Venterea, R and van Kessel, C (2015) Nitrogen fertilization reduces yield declines following no-till adoption. Field Crops Research 183, 204–210.Google Scholar
Marongwe, LS, Kwazira, K, Jenrich, M, Thierfelder, C, Kassam, A and Friedrich, T (2011) An African success: the case of conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9, 153–161.Google Scholar
Mupangwa, W, Mutenje, M, Thierfelder, C and Nyagumbo, I (2016) Are conservation agriculture (CA) systems productive and profitable options for smallholder farmers in different agro-ecoregions of Zimbabwe? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 32, 87–103.Google Scholar
Ndah, HT, Schuler, J, Uthes, S, Zander, P, Traore, K, Gama, MS, Nyagumbo, I, Triomphe, B, Sieber, S and Corbeels, M (2014) Adoption potential of conservation agriculture practices in sub-Saharan Africa: results from five case studies. Environmental Management 53, 620–635.Google Scholar
Ngoma, H, Mason, NM and Sitko, NJ (2015) Does minimum tillage with planting basins or ripping raise maize yields? Meso-panel data evidence from Zambia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 212, 21–29.Google Scholar
Ngwira, A, Johnsen, FH, Aune, JB, Mekuria, M and Thierfelder, C (2014) Adoption and extent of conservation agriculture practices among smallholder farmers in Malawi. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69, 107–119.Google Scholar
Pannell, DJ, Llewellyn, RS and Corbeels, M (2014) The farm-level economics of conservation agriculture for resource-poor farmers. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187, 52–64.Google Scholar
Pedzisa, T, Rugube, L, Winter-Nelson, A, Baylis, K and Mazvimavi, K (2015) Abandonment of conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Development 8, 69–82.Google Scholar
Pittelkow, CM, Liang, X, Linquist, BA, van Groenigen, KJ, Lee, J, Lundy, ME, van Gestel, N, Six, J, Venterea, RT and van Kessel, C (2015) Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517, 365–368.10.1038/nature13809Google Scholar
Rusinamhodzi, L (2015) Tinkering on the periphery: labour burden not crop productivity increased under no-till planting basins on smallholder farms in Murehwa district, Zimbabwe. Field Crops Research 170, 66–75.Google Scholar
Simtowe, F (2011) Determinants of Agricultural Technology adoption: the Case of Improved Pigeonpea Varieties in Tanzania, MPRA Paper No. 41329. Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).Google Scholar
Stevenson, JR, Serraj, R and Cassman, KG (2014) Evaluating conservation agriculture for small-scale farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187, 1–10.10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.018Google Scholar
Suri, T (2011) Selection and comparative advantage in technology adoption. Econometrica 79, 159–209.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C, Bunderson, W and Mupangwa, W (2015) Evidence and lessons learned from long-term on-farm research on conservation agriculture systems in communities in Malawi and Zimbabwe. Environments 2, 317–337.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C, Matemba-Mutasa, R, Bunderson, WT, Mutenje, M, Nyagumbo, I and Mupangwa, W (2016) Evaluating manual conservation agriculture systems in Southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 222, 112–124.Google Scholar
Tittonell, P, van Wijk, MT, Herrero, M, Rufino, MC, de Ridder, N and Giller, KE (2009) Beyond resource constraints—exploring the biophysical feasibility of options for the intensification of smallholder crop-livestock systems in Vihiga district, Kenya. Agricultural Systems 101, 1–19.Google Scholar
Valbuena, D, Erenstein, O, Homann-Kee Tui, S, Abdoulaye, T, Claessens, L, Duncan, AJ, Gérard, B, Rufino, MC, Teufel, N, van Rooyen, A and van Wijk, MT (2012) Conservation agriculture in mixed crop–livestock systems: scoping crop residue trade-offs in Sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. Field Crops Research 132, 175–184.Google Scholar
van Ittersum, M, Bussel, LGJv, Wolf, J, Grassini, P, Wart, Jv, Guilpart, N, Claessens, L, Groot, Hd, Wiebe, K, Daniel, Mason-D'Croz, Haishun, Yang, Hendrik, Boogaard, Oortf, PAJv, Loon, MPv, Saito, K, Adimo, O, Adjei-Nsiah, S, Agali, A, Bala, A, Chikowo, R, Kaizzi, K, Kouressy, M, Makoi, JHJR, Ouattara, K, Tesfaye, K and Cassman, KG (2016) Can Sub-Saharan Africa feed itself? PNAS 113, 14964–14969.Google Scholar
Vanlauwe, B, Wendt, J, Giller, KE, Corbeels, M, Gerard, B and Nolte, C (2014) A fourth principle is required to define conservation agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: the appropriate use of fertilizer to enhance crop productivity. Field Crops Research 155, 10–13.Google Scholar
Wellard, K, Rafanomezana, J, Nyirenda, M, Okotel, M and Subbey, V (2013) A review of community extension approaches to innovation for improved livelihoods in Ghana, Uganda and Malawi. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 19, 21–35.Google Scholar