Where to Target Conservation Agriculture for African Smallholders? How to Overcome Challenges Associated with its Implementation? Experience from Eastern and Southern Africa

Abstract

Since the paper by Giller et al. (2009), the debate surrounding the suitability of conservation agriculture (CA) for African smallholders has remained polarized between proponents and opponents. The debate also gave rise to a few studies that attempted to identify the "niche" where CA would fit in the region, but the insight offered by these studies has been limited. In this paper, we first analyze the rationale of adoption where it occurred globally to define "drivers" of adoption. Our analysis suggests that CA has first and foremost been adopted under the premises of being energy-saving (time and/or power), erosion-controlling, and water-use efficient, but rarely to increase yield. We then define the niche where CA fits, based on these drivers of adoption, as systems where (1) the energy available for crop establishment is limited and/or costly (including labor and draft power); (2) delayed planting results in a significant yield decline; (3) yield is limited or co-limited by water; and/or (4) severe erosion problems threaten the short-to medium-term productivity of farmland. In Eastern and Southern Africa, this niche appears rather large and likely to expand in the near future. When implemented within this niche, CA may still be limited by "performance challenges" that do not constitute drivers or barriers to adoption, but limitations to the performance of CA. We argue that most of these performance challenges can (and should) be addressed by agronomic and socio-economic research, and provide four OPEN ACCESSEnvironments 2015, 2 339 examples where the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and its partners have been successfully alleviating four very different challenges through research and development (R&D) in Eastern and Southern Africa. Finally, we describe an iterative and multi-scale R&D approach currently used by CIMMYT in Eastern and Southern Africa to overcome challenges associated with the implementation of CA by African smallholders. This approach could also be useful for other complex combinations of technologies aiming at sustainable intensification.

Conservation agriculture, conservation farming and conventional tillage adoption, efficiency and economic benefits in semi-arid Zimbabwe

“…Lack of mechanized equipment limits adoption of some conservation practices. This outcome is confirmed by Baundron et al (2015) who mentioned that lack of machinery has been one of the drivers of adoption of CF techniques in Southern Africa. Our study has results of 20% CA adoption which agree with Ngwira et Model 1 = OLS (no technical inefficiency); Model 2 = Efficiency effects frontier; Significance codes: 0.01***, 0.05**, 0.10*; Source: Survey data.…”

Policy Integration and Coherence for Conservation Agriculture Initiatives in Malawi

“…However, the literature widely acknowledges the need for more research to adapt and contextualise CA to achieve sustained adoption (Twomlow & Delve, 2016;Baudron, Thierfelder, Nyagumbo, & Gerard, 2015;Andersson & D'Souza, 2014). In the Malawi CA guidelines, a narrow research agenda, focused on biophysical and economic analyses to support the efficacy of CA, has overlooked the important role of participatory and interdisciplinary social and political-institutional aspects of CA, which are crucial for sustaining adoption among smallholder farmers (Friedrich, Kassam, & Taher, 2009).…”

Implications of tillage practices, management of soil surface and fertilizer application on sustainable dryland agriculture: A case study of Eastern Rwanda

“…There have been debates on how CA would fit ecological and socio economic conditions for smallholder farming (Baudron et al, 2015). An example is the discoursed in Vanlauwe et al (2014) on the appropriate use of fertilizer to enhance crop productivity as a fourth principle required to define CA in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), which has been criticized by Sommer et al (2014) as confusing element in CA.…”