Conservation Agriculture & SRI for climate change adaptation and food security

Inception and Planning Workshop: Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for Innovation and
Learning around the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the Lower Mekong River Basin (SRI-LMB),
Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok Thailand, 09-12 April 2013
Looking at Conservation Agriculture through the
Lens of Sustainable Production Intensification
Amir Kassam OBE, FSB
University of Reading
Tropical Agriculture Association (TAA)
European Conservation Agriculture Federation (ECAF)
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN

There is now a structural response to harness
sustainable production intensification based on
what I will present
This is backed by:
-International agencies – FAO, WB, IFAD, EU, ADB, GEF, CIRAD, CBD,
CGIAR Centres …
-Donor agencies - GIZ, NORAD, AFD …
-Foundations - Aga Khan, Howard Buffet …
-NGOs – CARE, Oxfam, World Vision, Concern Inter …
-Corporations – when farmer driven e.g. Syngenta, …
-Universities – Ponta Grossa, Londrina, Evora, Reading, Alberta,
California, Earth, Ludhiana, Teramo, Cornell …
-Farmer associations – Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Canada, US,
Europe …
-NARS – Embrapa, Canada, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Zambia, India…

• Save and Grow: is about
implementing a new paradigm of
sustainable production intensification.
• No single overall solution but all productivity solutions
need to be based on ecologically sustainable
production intensification principles such as those of
Conservation Agriculture.
• Mobilize the whole ecosystem rather than fight or
degrade it, and enhance natural capital and the flow of
ecosystem services.
For example, FAO’s response to SPI challenge
Cross Slot Conference and Tour 2012 – Germany/France
3

Technical objectives of sustainable intensification
• Agricultural land productivity – yield and output
• Enhanced input-use efficiency – production
factor productivities
Simultaneously!
• Natural capital and ecosystems services
• Use of biodiversity – natural and managed
(and carbon) to build farming system resilience
But how? What does this mean in practice?
4

Conventional productivity approach
regular tillage, clean seedbed, exposed
Effects:
• Loss of organic matter
• Destruction of biological life & processes
• Soil compaction
5

Land degradation due to tillage
6
Depleted water infiltration due to
soil compaction

Iguassu Falls, Brazil
This is millions of
tonnes of topsoil
going over the edge.
7

A healthy soil in which roots can
perform its functions looks like this
8

Sustainable productivity approach
Empirical and scientific evidence internationally shows ....
• No or minimum mechanical soil
disturbance by – seeding or planting
directly into untilled soil
• Maintenance of organic matter
cover on the soil surface – using crop
residues and cover crops to build soil health
• Diversification of species -- both annuals
and perennials - in associations, sequences
and rotations
Plus complementary crop, nutrient, water & pest
Management == Conservation Agriculture
9

Sustainable Land Management in CA
Planting holes, ripping or mulching, direct drill
10

Ecological foundation of sustainable
agriculture production (CA)
Minimum soil
disturbance
Soil Cover Crop Diversity
11

CA does not solve ALL problems
(NO panacea) but complemented with
other practices CA base allows for
high production intensity and
sustainable agriculture
in all land-based
production
systems.
Ecological Base of CA
Minimum soil
disturbance
Soil Cover Crop Diversity
Integrated
Pest
Management
Integrated
Plant
Nutrient
Management
Integrated
Weed
Management
Integrated
Water
management
Sustainable
mechanization
Compaction
management,
CTF
Permanent
Bed and
Furrow
Systems
System
of Rice
Intensification
Good seed
Genetic potential
Genetic resources mgmt
Pollinator/
Biodiversity
management
Organic
agriculture
12

Conservation Agriculture
13
Benefits are documented where CA has been
applied over a longer time and large area: Canada,
Brazil, Australia, Argentina.
Conservation Agriculture: Imapcts

14
Similar reports are now appearing increasingly from
small scale farmers and from other regions:
Conservation Agriculture - Impacts

CA opens the way for diversified and integrated
production:
• Horizontal integration of other
production sectors
(agro-forestry,
crop-livestock
integration!)
• Ecosystem services
• Labour saving allowing vertical integration in the
value chain
• Employment generation and local and national
economic development
15
Conservation Agriculture – Wider picture

•Erosion & loss of productivity: North
America, Brazil, China
• Drought & loss of productivity:
China, Australia, Kazakhstan, Zambia,
Kenya
• Cost of production & energy
efficiency: global
• Ecosystem services with
productivity: global
• Increasingly a preferred
choice for SPI including CC: global
AG department brainstorming, April 12, 2012
Drivers for adoption of CA
16

USA 26.5
Canada 13.5
Australia 17
Europe 1
Kazakhstan 2
Africa 1
Brazil
25.5
Conservation Agriculture globally 125 Million ha
(9% of cropland -- 2011)
Argentina 25.5 (10.5)
Paraguay 2.4
China 3.1
tropical savannah
continental, dry
temperate, moist
temperate, moist
continental, dry
irrigated
smallholder
smallholder
smallholder
arid
arid
large scale
large
scale
large scale
large scale
large scale
large scale
subtropical, dry
tropical savannah
other LA 2.4
>50% W
(30%)
15%
79%
100% West
(35%)
Russia,
Ukraine 5.1
FAO
Impact
?
?
World total 2008 = 95 Million ha 17

Global CA area (million ha) over time
History and Development
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00 125
Increasing at 10 M ha p. a.
18

Pattern of impacts of CA
• Increase yields, production, profit
(depending on level and degradation)
• Less fertilizer use (-50%)
less pesticides (-20%)
• Less machinery and
labour/drudgery & fuel
consumption (-70%)
• water needs (-30%)
• More stable yields – lower impact of climate
(drought, floods, heat, cold) – CC adaptability
• Climate change mitigation (C sequestration)
• Lower environmental cost (water, infrastructure)
Wheat yield and nitrogen amount for different
duration of no-tillage in Canada 2002 (Lafond
2003)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0 30 60 90 120
nitrogen (kg/ha
Grainyield(t/ha)
20-year no-tillage
2-year no-tillage
AG department brainstorming, April 12, 2012
19

Advantages: livelihood/income
Smallholder farmers:
• 50% labour saving
• less drudgery
• improved food security
• better livelihood/income
• stable & increased yields
Mechanized Farmers:
• less machinery
• 70% fuel saving
• better livelihood/income
• stable & increased yields
20

Itaipu dam today (source: Itaipu Binacional)
Water resources are threatened by
conventional tillage agricultural practices.
Conservation Agriculture is an alternative
to reduce impacts on river’s quality and to
maintain a high level of productivity and
sustainability.
Cultivating Good Water Programme
And what happened to Brazil’s river of tea?
21

• Conservation Agriculture is capable of serving as a basis for
sustainable food and agriculture production intensification
• Conservation Agriculture spreading exponentially world-wide
• Transformation to CA has been farmer-driven
• CA shows globally similar positive results, including for women
• CA is only in very few cases promoted by policies
• Several constraints but can and are being addressed but needs to
be accelerated
22
Concluding remarks

CA is proving to be widely applicable and a good
solution for:
Sustainable production intensification with
ecosystem services in all field-based production
systems, and can contribute to resilient rural
livelihoods and poverty reduction.
23
Thank you for your attention.
More information: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca
And finally ….

Experiences in Asia
24
•Special challenge: convert paddy rice to CA
• India, Bangladesh and Pakistan experiment
with components of CA
• 5 million ha of no-till wheat in Indo-Gangetic
Plains across India, Pakistan, Nepal and
Bangladesh, in the wheat-rice double cropping
system, but only marginal adoption of permanent no-till systems
and full CA because of puddled rice.
• Double no-till wheat-rice system now being ‘rolled’ out.
• In India no-till systems being tried out in rainfed areas.

Experiences in Asia
25
Growing interest in CA in Cambodia, Laos,
Vietnam
•China promotes CA officially as means against
drought, dust storms, erosion; subsidies for
equipment
• Kazakhstan promotes CA in wheat growing areas in the North
• DPR Korea promotes CA to fight hunger

No-till Rice:
• no puddling
• no flooding
• less CH4
• less N2O
• less water

Surface mulching with no-till wheat, Pakistan/India

Conservation Agriculture in Bangladesh
example of 2WT-based CA technologies: (a) strip-
tillage in Bangladesh; (b) direct seeding with the
Australian designed Rogro seed drill; (c) Brazilian two-
row direct seeder; and (d) bed planter in Bangladesh.
28
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Example of 2WT-based CA technologies: (a) strip-tillage in Bangladesh; (b) direct
seeding with the Australian designed Rogro seed drill; (c) Brazilian two-row direct
seeder; and (d) bed planter in Bangladesh.

CA adoption in sub-Saharan Africa
(‘000 ha) – Total 1.01 Million ha in 2011, 600,000 since 2008
Ghana, 30.00
Kenya, 33.00
Lesotho,
2.00
Malawi,
16.00
Madagascar, 6.00
Mozambique, 152.00
Namibia, 0.34
South Africa,
368.00
Sudan, 10.00
Tanzania, 25.00
Zambia, 200.00
Zimbabwe, 139.30
29

Experiences in Sub-Saharan Africa
30
• Commercial farmers use CA mainly due to
drought and cost problems
•CA is part of regional agricultural policy (CAADP)
• Increased interest by governments and
development organizations – CA successful
model for emergency and rehabilitation projects
• Increase of CA adopters among small scale
farmers in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi
due to development projects and support programmes

Longer term maize grain yields on farmers
fields in Malawi - Lemu
32Harvest year
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Maizebiomassyield(kgha
-1
)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Conventional control, maize (CPM)
CA, maize (CAM)
CA, maize/legume intercropping (CAML)
a
a
a a
b
b
aa
b
b
a
a
b
a
a
b
a a

Longer term maize grain yields on farmers
fields in Malawi - Zidyana
33
Zidyana
Year
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
YielddifferencebetweenCAandCP(kgha
-1
)
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
CAML
CAM
C

Regional perspective – Southern Africa
Conventional tillage yield (kg ha-1
)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Conservationagriculturetreatmentyield(kgha-1
)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Planting basins, Mozambique
Jab planter, Mozambique
Direct seeding, Zimbabwe
Ripper, Zimbabwe
Direct seeding, Zambia
Ripper, Zambia
Direct seeding, Malawi
Intercropping, Malawi
34

Economic viability-Malawi
Lemu Zidyana
CP CA CAL CP CA CAL
Gross Receipts 528.6 881.5 979.7 1047.2 1309.5 1293.7
Variable costs
Inputs 238.5 341.0 353.6 221.7 323.7 346.1
Labour days (6 hr days) 61.7 39.9 49.4 61.7 39.9 49.4
Labour costs 159.5 103.2 127.9 155.6 100.7 124.7
Sprayer costs 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.2
Total variable costs 398.1 445.9 482.8 377.3 426.1 472.1
Net returns (US$/ha) 130.5 435.5 497.1 669.9 883.3 821.9
Returns to labour (US$/day) 1.8 5.2 4.9 5.4 9.8 7.6
Source: Ngwira et al., 2012

Adoption of CA in Malawi....
(16,000 ha; 35,000 farmers)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
AreaoffarmerspracticingCA(ha)
NooffarmerspracticingCA
withTLCsupport
Farmers Total Area
36

Conservation Agriculture:
an approach to reducing food insecurity
Current CA area in Malawi is: 16,000 ha; 35,000 farmers
“In both study locations (Lemu & Zidyana) CA monocrop maize and
CA maize–legume intercrop gave higher water infiltration than the
conventional treatment. Improvements in crop productivity, overall
economic gain and soil quality have made CA an attractive system
for farmers in Malawi and other areas with similar conditions.
However, for extensive adoption of CA by smallholder farmers,
cultural beliefs that crop production is possible without the
ubiquitous ridge and furrow system and residue burning for mice
hunting have to be overcome.”
Ngwira, Theierfelder & Lambert (2012) Journal of Renewable energy
and Food Systems, August issue
37

What can we learn from these examples?
From CIMMYT
• Yield comparisons are good BUT, more important, are the initial
socio-economic benefits.
• Under the same fertilizer level, signficant yield increases can be
expected after 3-5 cropping season.
• CA benefits appear in high potential and low potential areas.
• Women benefit at various levels. Land preparation is manual
labour reduced by 20-25 labour days per ha. With herbicides for
weeding, another 15-20 labour days per ha which mostly
benefits women.
38

Itaipu dam today (source: Itaipu Binacional)
Water resources are threatened by
conventional tillage agricultural practices.
Conservation Agriculture is an alternative
to reduce impacts on river’s quality and to
maintain a high level of productivity and
sustainability.
Cultivating Good Water Programme
And what happened to Brazil’s river of tea?
39

CA is proving to be widely applicable and a good
solution for:
Sustainable production intensification with
ecosystem services
that can contribute to resilient rural livelihoods
and poverty reduction.
40
Thank you for your attention.
More information: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca
And finally ….

Conservation Agriculture & SRI for climate change adaptation and food security

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Conservation Agriculture & SRI for climate change adaptation and food security

Ähnlich wie Conservation Agriculture & SRI for climate change adaptation and food security (20)

Mehr von Sri Lmb

Mehr von Sri Lmb (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Conservation Agriculture & SRI for climate change adaptation and food security