www.CA2Africa.eu

Marc Corbeels, Researcher - CIRAD

Conservation Agriculture: A reality check for adopting CA in sub-saharan Africa

and

QAToCAa Qualitative expert Assessment Tool

for CA Adoption

The underlying problem - poor soil fertility

1. Yield benefits usually in the long term, while costs are immediate

2. Strong trade-offs with other activities at the farm level and above

3. 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

Major constraints for adoption/challenges for research and development with CA in Africa

Source: Rusinamhodzi, Corbeels, van Wijk, Rufino, Nyamangara and Giller (2010) Agronomy for Sustainable Development (in review)

• 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• Farmers often attribute higher value to immediate costs and benefits than those realized or occurred in future

1. Yield benefits in the long term: meta-analysis

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/communal land use: free grazing – local

by-laws? The reallocation of labour, especially to weeding

• CA without herbicides increases labour demand for weeding• Implying a shift of work

• from mechanized to manual labour• from men to women

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Conventionaltillage

Conservationagriculture

lab

ou

r (h

ou

rs/h

a)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Conventional tillage Conservationagriculture

lab

ou

r (h

ou

rs/h

a)

harvest

weeding

fertilization

planting

Source: Siziba (2008) PhD thesis, University of Hohenheim

Zimuto, Zimbabwe

Shamva, Zimbabwe

2. Strong trade-offs of implementing CA

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’

Ag

ron

om

ic e

ffic

ien

cy

Currentpractice

Germplasm& fertilizer

+ Organicresource mgt

+ Localadaptation

Germplasm& fertilizer’

+ Organicresource mgt

Germplasm& fertilizer

‘Full ISFM’Move towards ISFM

Increase in knowledge

Responsive soilsPoor, less-responsive soils

A

B

C

Yie

ld/

Conservation agriculture: knowledge intensive

CA

Source: TSBF

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?

5. Need for tailoring CA

Farm(er)s are not all the same!

Resource-rich farm

Resource-poor farm

Flat land Clayey soils Poor productivity Many livestock Little capacity to invest

Unsecure access to land

Poor markets Poor institutional

environment

Steep slopes Sandy/loam soils Abundant biomass Few livestock Wealthier farmers who can

afford inputs Stable land tenure

arrangements Good markets ‘Enabling’ institutional

environments

Likelihood of adoption by farmers?

5. Need for tailoring CA: framework for ‘ideotyping’

CA, a complex innovation process

• At each scale opportunities and constraints emerge that may favour 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

A multi-scale process

Dynamic iterative innovation process

Policy makers

Dynamic iterative innovation process

Policy makers

• Non-linear, but interactive approach • Getting the right stakeholders on-board with their adequate role• Key role of farmers & their associations

Source: Wall, Ekboir, and Hobbs (2002) International Workshop on Conservation Agriculture Uzbekistan.

A multi-stakeholder innovation process

CA, a complex innovation process

Research priorities for the future:

From a multi-stakeholder, multi-scale, and interdisciplinary perspective

Design of CA practices adapted to local conditions Analyze and identify ex-ante opportune situations for implementing CA Analyze and solve trade-offs in allocation of farm resources Nurture the necessary CA networks and CA innovation systems Design market support policies that favor the emergence of CA

Many on-going research project tackling some of these issues

CIMMYT, ICRISAT, EMBRAPA, etc. Many projects in which CIRAD is involved: CA2AFRICA and ABACO (EU),

PEPITES (ANR-France), SCAP (IFAD), PAMPA (AFD)

CA in the world and 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

CA2Africa scales of implementation and QAToCA Coverage

Source: adapted from Corbeels et al (2009) CA2Africa DoW

QA

To

CA

Objectives of QAToCA

Which region(s) have higher or lower CA adoption likelihood?

Which thematic area within the CA innovation system or

component of a particular case study/project is likely to be

influencing the adoption status?

What are some of the key determinants of the observed

adoption status?

Objectives of QAToCA

Better understanding

of the local situation (specific socio-economic, political

and institutional frame conditions etc.) and

the contextual and regional issues to assist in the

understanding and foreseeing of CA adoption?

Further use of outcomesOutcomes can be used as a basis for restitutions and discussions with stakeholders of the case studies/projects as this will assist in

providing new insights into the specific CA development and diffusion programs and projects, and inproviding entry points for planning /adjusting some of the on-going and future CA-related actions.

Origin and development of QAToCA

A combination of the following have assisted in the development of the tool:

Reviewed selected adoption theories and conceptual models of innovation systems (see WP2 report D2.2)

Inspiration from the ScalA –Tool: Tool for the assessment of sustainability, climate relevance and scaling-up potential of project approaches (Bringe et al (2006)

used by GTZ (http://www.gtz.de/) and Sustainet (http://wwww.sustainet.org/)

CA2Africa experts evaluation and feedback (ZALF, CIRAD, CSIC, WU experts)

Pretesting and feedback in CA2Africa 1st regional workshops with CA experts and stakeholders (Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Tunisia, Madagascar, Zimbabwe)

List of reviewed theories and concepts

Adoption theories;Theory of psychological field; Lewin (1947)Theory of Behaviour modification; Hruschka (1994)Diffusion of Innovation Theory; Rogers (2003) The Diffusion Theory: Hohenheim Diffusion Concept; Hoffmann (2005) Theory of Planned Behaviour; Ajzen (1991) Dynamics of CA Adoption; Triomphe et al (2007)

Conceptual models;Innovation System Approach: ISA; Lundvall (2004); Mytelka (2000); World Bank (2006) The Innovation Policy Terrain; OECD (1997) A Generic National Innovation System; OECD (1997) Elements of National Innovative Capacity; Porter and Stern (2002) Actor Network Theory (model); Callon and Latour following Law and Hassard (1999)

[See deliverable report D2.2 for WP2 of CA2Africa: An inventory of bio-physical, socioeconomic and conceptual models of innovation systems for assessment of agricultural (Innovative) practices]

Structure of QAToCAQuestions grouped under specific thematic areas

Consideration of the differerent scales of implementation of a project from Farm level to Village/Local and Regional levels:

A Object of Adoption (CA) (ObjofAdoptFarmVillLev)

B Capacity of implementing organisation (CapacityofImplOrgVillRegLev)

C Attributes of Scaling up (AttrOfScalingUpVillRegLev)

D Political/Institutional framework at Regional Level (PolInstFramRegLev)

E Political/Institutional framework at Village level (PolInstFramVillLev)

F Economic Conditions (EconCondVillRegLev)

G Community’s attitude towards CA (CommunityAttitVillRegLev)

A Object of Adoption (CA)

Issues relating to the characteristics of CA as an object of adoption. Subjective measurement of issues such as:

Trialability of CA, complexity, compatibility with societal norms and customs, observability

Divisibility Financial requirements of CA Knowledge intensive nature, Labour requirement, Rate of returns (profitability) Risk Influence of CA on natural resources, Farmers prestige and autonomy CA input

B Capacity of implementing organization

Targets the CA implementing organizations

checks on the overall philosophy of the organization

the type and quality of staff leadership quality connectivity of the institution or the level of

network

C Attributes of Scaling up Measurement of the diffusion strategy of the promoting

organizations is the main focus of this theme

Overall objective of diffusion Organization’s level of documentation Monitoring and evaluation Type and quality of communication channels; organization’s

level of involvement in capacity building use of incentives in stimulating adoption

D Political/Institutional framework at regional level

This theme is focused on subjectively checking on the political or institutional frame conditions of the region

Level of political stability Tolerance level of the civil society towards CA The system of administration and its effect on CA promotion Nature of administrative set up Type of policies as well as their possible influence on the CA

adoption

E Political/Institutional framework at village level

Questions under this theme are focused on assessing issues relating to the state of local level governance structures and institutions with their likely influence on CA adoption

Compatibility of CA as an emerging innovation with local customs and traditions

Issues of land access Ownership

F Economic Conditions The theme addresses issues related to

Market availability and access Availability of basic infrastructures such as farm to market

roads and irrigation possibilities Level of other economic actors’ engagement in CA promotion Availability of quality control measures and implementation

G Community’s attitude towards CA

Questions that fall in this theme check on the acceptability of CA by the community, as well as village leaders and influential persons in the decision making process of the village

Level of young farmers’ commitment to CA is further checked here as well as a measure of the dynamic and innovative level of the CA community under consideration

Overview Cont.

Evaluation Scale for QAToCA

Three possible statements for each operational question

The scale from 0-2 indicates the strength of the suggested

statements with respect to their influence on the likelihood of

adoption

where: 0 = not influential, has no/negative effect on adoption likelihood 1 = little influence, has limited positive effect on adoption,

2 = highest influence, has maximum positive effect on adoption

likelihoodN = if non of the statements is appropriate [including a comment]

Example

Step 1 Step 2Step 5

2

Step 6Step 3

Step 4

Who should fill in the tool to ensure a reasonable degree of scientific quality?

Ideally, one QAToCA file should be filled in by several experts for one case study, assuming that no single expert has knowledge about all levels considered by the tool. The best selection would be

a researcher, an extensionist/promoter of CA, a farmer (with appropriate knowledge), who adopted, and if possible a farmer, who adopted, but stopped practicing,

or who considered adoption, but then didn't go for it.

Target group for QAToCA

If possible, a person that is familiar with QAToCA should act as facilitator guiding the experts through the statements

The perfect venue would be a workshop-like meeting with enough time for discussions (approx. half a day).

Possible discussions should be documented to reflect diverting opinions

ONE file per CASE STUDY!

Target group for QAToCA

Some results from East-Africa

Some results from East-Africa

Legend: +Supporting factor; - Hindering factor

Some results from East-AfricaTable 1: Overview supporting and hindering factors to CA adoption in six regions in East-Africa (expert opinion) Case study region Thematic area ID Indicator R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 A Object of

Adoption (CA)

A01 Cost of CA and liquidity issues - - - - - - A02 Availability of CA knowledge - - + - - - A03 Complexity of CA + - - - - - A04 Labour requirements vs. endowments + - + - + - A05 Availability of social networks/org. + - - - + - A06 Residue and seeds requirements vs.

availability + + - - - -

A07 Machinery + fuel requirement and availability

- - - - - -

A08 Land requirement and availability + + + + + + A09 Observability of CA + + - + + + A10 CA yield response and time - - - - + + A11 Relative economic risk - + - - - - A12 Trialability + + + + + - A13 Flexibility/adaptability + + - + - - A14 CA and social status + prestige of

farmers + + - - - +

A15 CA and conflict over resources - + - - + +