A presentation from the WCCA 2011 conference in Brisbane.

1. IMPACT AND ADOPTION OF
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN AFRICA:
A MULTI-SCALE & MULTI-STAKEHOLDER
ANALYSIS
Marc Corbeels,
corbeels@cirad.fr
Tom Apina, Saidi Koala, Johannes Schuler, Bernard Triomphe,
Mohammed El Mourid, Karim Traore, Isaiah Nyagumbo, Rachid Mrabet,
Eric Penot, Helena Gomez-Macpherson, Jan de Graaff, Pablo Tittonell

2. CA2Africa project: Analysing and
Foreseeing its Impact - Comprehending its
Adoption
 Aims
 a better understanding of the reasons for the limited adoption of CA
in Africa - by analysing past and on-going CA experiences –case
studies-
 a better comprehension of where, when and for whom CA works
best, and how CA should be configured in different settings
 the identification of knowledge gaps for future research,
development and promotion of CA in Africa.
www.CA2Africa.eu

3. Background
 Univocal promotion of Conservation Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa by
international organizations, donors, NGOs (and churches) as a means to
overcome continuing poor-profitability, food insecurity and soil degradation on
smallholder farms
 Often promoted as a “panacea”
« In Zambia, conservation agriculture has helped
vulnerable households pull through drought and
livestock epidemics. In the 2000-2001 drought,
farmers who used conservation agriculture
managed to harvest one crop, others farming
with conventional methods faced total crop
failure.» FAO news release October 4, 2005

4. Competition for crop residues
Farming God‟s way
Surface residues = „God‟s blanket‟
Agro-ecological and socio-economic
settings are no longer the structuring
forces of agronomic practices

5. Low adoption rates 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

6. Example: adoption of CA in Madagascar
 BV Lac Project on promotion of CA-based rice systems (see also presentation of Eric
Penot, Thursday, 9.00h)
 The area under CA increased steadily since the start of the project.
 A high proportion of the farmers abandon the CA technique after 2 years (of experimentation)
 Once farmers have gone through the experimental phase, the dropout rates are much lower and
stabilize

7. CA2Africa project:
a multi-stakeholder analysis
Morocco and Tunisia
Burkina Faso, Benin
Kenya,
Tanzania
Zimbabwe,
Malawi, Madagascar
Zambia
 to share, assess and learn together with all stakeholders from these case
studies on CA.

8. CA2Africa project:
a multi-stakeholder analysis
 A multi-stakeholder innovation process
Dynamic iterative innovation process
Source: Wall, Ekboir, and Hobbs
(2002) International Workshop on
Policy
Conservation Agriculture
makers
Uzbekistan.
• an interactive approach linear approach of knowledge transfer
• getting the right stakeholders on-board with their adequate role
• key role of farmers & their associations

9. Conceptual framework: three scales
of analysis
interactions
Bio-economic models
Qualitative assessment tools
Crop growth models
• At each scale opportunities and constraints emerge that may favor 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
• Each scale has its own analytical tools and/or models

10. Major constraints for adoption/challenges
for research and development
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) markets
4. Knowledge-intensive nature of implementing CA
5. Need for „tailoring‟ CA to the huge diversity of farmers,
local practices and local / regional environments

11. 1. Yield benefits in the long term: meta-analysis
Source: Rusinamhodzi, Corbeels, van Wijk, Rufino, Nyamangara and Giller (2011) Agronomy for
Sustainable Development (in press)
• 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

12. 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: free grazing

13. 2. Strong trade-offs of implementing CA
 Territorial arrangements between villagers (farmer-herders and herders) in
Tapi village in northern Cameroon (Dugue et al, 2011)
 A common goal: to produce more feed for livestock but not at the expense
of the production of cereals (no reduction possible in area for cereals)
 Community-based management of grazing areas in the dry season
 Questioning of the right of free grazing
 Zones were defined: a ‟green‟ area or open area, a ‟red‟ area or closed area
and a „orange‟ area
 Monitoring by a committee
Homefields
Aureole 3 Aureole 2 Aureole 3

14. 2. Strong trade-offs of implementing CA
Zimuto, Zimbabwe Shamva, Zimbabwe
400 400
350 350
300 300
labour (hours/ha)
labour (hours/ha)
250 harvest
250
weeding
200 200
fertilization
150 150
planting
100 100
50 50
0 0
Conventional Conservation Conventional tillage Conservation
tillage agriculture agriculture
Source: Siziba (2008) PhD thesis, University of Hohenheim
• CA without herbicides increases labour demand for weeding
• Implying a shift of work
• from mechanized to manual labour
• from men to women
• Without use of herbicides CA is unlikely to result in significant net savings in
labour, while net savings may appear in the long-term if herbicides are used

15. 3. Poor functioning of markets
 Limited access to inputs: no-till equipment, herbicides, and fertilizer
 Expensive
 Lack of effective input supply chain

16. 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‟

17. 5. Need for tailoring CA
Source: Rusinamhodzi, Corbeels, van Wijk, Rufino, Nyamangara and Giller (2011) Agronomy for
Sustainable Development (in press)
• Input-intensive nature of CA systems: more adapted for wealthier
farmers

18. 5. Need for tailoring CA: framework for ‘ideotyping’
Likelihood of adoption by farmers?
 Flat land  Steep slopes
 Clayey soils  Sandy/loam soils
 Poor productivity  Abundant biomass
 Many livestock  Few livestock
 Little capacity to invest  Wealthier farmers who can
afford inputs
 Unsecure access to land  Stable land tenure
arrangements
 Poor markets  Good markets
 Poor institutional environment  „Enabling‟ institutional
environments

19. 5. Need for tailoring CA
 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?

20. In summary: 4 key points
 Potential benefits of CA, many of them in the long-term
and with « full » CA (rotations!)
 Profits from CA are not always immediately felt by
farmers = bottleneck to adoption
 Many R&D challenges in « fitting » CA to local conditions
and achieving adoption among smallholders in Africa
 Complex, multi-scale, multi-stakeholder nature of a
successful CA innovation process

21.  Thanks for your attention

23. Diversity of CA systems

24. 5. Need for tailoring CA: framework for ‘ideotyping’
Defining a socio-ecological
niche for CA

25. 4. Knowledge-intensive nature of implementing CA
e
l edg
Yield/ Agronomic efficiency
k now
in
re ase
Inc
CA
A
C
Responsive soils
B Poor, less-responsive soils
Current Germplasm Germplasm Germplasm
practice & fertilizer & fertilizer’ & fertilizer
8 kg nutrients/ha + Organic + Organic
resource mgt resource mgt
+ Local
adaptation
Move towards ISFM
‘Full ISFM’
• CA = holistic systems with major changes in soil/crop
management at the same time
• Need for capacity building (farmers, extension, research) with
room for adaptations