Does CA pay? Experiences from the smallholder farming sector of Zimbabwe. Killain Mutiro
-
Upload
joanna-hicks -
Category
Education
-
view
461 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Does CA pay? Experiences from the smallholder farming sector of Zimbabwe. Killain Mutiro
Does Conservation Agriculture Pay? Experiences from the smallholder farming sector of Zimbabwe
Killian Mutiro, B. Mvumi, E. KeoghGRM International
Protracted Relief Program (PRP)Zimbabwe
SUSTAINABLE IMPACT
PRP Multi-donor programme, DFID as main donor
Goal Extreme poverty in Zimbabwe reduced.PurposeDestitution prevented and livelihoods of the poorest and most vulnerable protected and promoted
ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
Livelihood Interventions
Social Protection Interventions
WASH Other
Agricultural inputs Food Transfers Water points installation or rehabilitation
Community Based Approaches
CA farmer support Cash Transfers Latrines Capacity building of community based groupsHH gardens HBC Support PHHE training
Community gardens
Small livestock
ISALs
REDUCING VULNERABILITY
Targeted Households: Very Poor Vulnerable Households
• Very poor with labour• Net exporters of labour (in exchange for
grain, seed, draft power)• No draft power• Cant afford mineral fertilizers and seed• Late planting• Poor yields – less than 500kg/ha• Food insecure
REDUCING VULNERABILITY
Targeted Household Profile
HH sizeLand area cultivated
Crops cultivated Livestock Holding
Very Poor 61ha-1.5ha
0.1ha gardensMaize, Sorghum, Cowpeas, Groundnuts, Sweet Potato
2-6 chickens
Poor 71.5ha-2ha
0.2ha gardens
Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas, Cotton Groundnuts, Sweet
Potato
5-7 chickens, 1-3 goats 1 cow
Middle 72.25ha-2.75ha 0.2ha garden
Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas, Groundnuts, Sweet Potato,
Cotton
8 chickens, 2-3 goats, 1-3 cattle, 1 ox, 0-2 donkeys
Better-off 48ha-12ha
0.6ha gardens
Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas, Groundnuts, Sweet Potato,
Cotton
15+ chickens, 2+ Oxen, 4-6 cattle, 7+ goats, 2-4 donkeys
Wealth Groups Characteristics
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
% of population
FLEXIBILITY
Strategy: CA Training and Input SupportActivity Achievement
HHAgricultural inputs
244,800
CA farmer support
113,658
CA Package(1) Permanent planting stations called potholes or basins established using hand hoes(2) Assistance with seed and fertilizer inputs (3) On-going training(4) Mechanization (credit for CA equipment)
POVERTY REDUCTION
Key Questions
1. Have we been able to address food insecurity among the very poor households supported by PRP?
2. Is CA profitable for the very poor?3. What is the Return to donor investment in CA?
POVERTY REDUCTION
Methodology
1. A modified Cost Benefit Analysis
- Donor and household investment
- Market prices ( did not use economic prices)
2. Gross Margin Analysis- Family labour3. Modelling of scenarios4. LIME monitoring
COMMUNITY DRIVEN
Scenarios for Modeling
Cropping Scenario Description
Normal farmer practice (no access to draft power)
Conventional ploughing, planted mid to late December and a minimum of two weedings
Optimum farmer practice (with access to draft power)
Conventional ploughing soon after effective rainfall and two weedings
Optimum farmer practice and microdosing
Conventional ploughing with 28kg of N per ha
CA basins without fertilizer CA basins with two weeding and no fertilizer
CA basins including fertilizer CA basins with two weeding and 28kg N per ha
INNOVATION
Results
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Yiel
d K
g/ha
Farmer Practice - 410 kg Optimum Farmer - 708 kg Basins No Fert -741 kg
Optimum Farmer+ 28 kg N - 1257 kg Basins + 28 kg N - 1369 kg
Source: ICRISAT
RESILIENCE
Results
•73% yield increase by just planting in time(conventional)
•81% yield increase by planting in time using basins
•5% increase in yield by switching to basins (Opt farmer to basins, no fertilizer)
•234% yield increase by adopting basins and fertilizer (28 kg N)
•9% yield benefit for adopting basins from optimum farmer with fertilizer
SUSTAINABLE IMPACT
Results
Key Indicator Farmer Practice
Inexperienced CA Farmer (1-3 years)
Experienced CA Farmer
Return to labour (US cents per labour hour)
9.8 10.4 15.7
Cost of producing a tonne of maize
239 146 126
Kgs of grain per labour hour
0.79 1.11 1.37
Cost Benefit Ratio at 12% discount rate
2.6
ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
Food Sources
Baseline Monitoring Baseline Monitoring Baseline MonitoringPoor Middle Better Off
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
GiftsFood aidBarterPurchasePayment in kindLivestock productsCrops
SOURCE: PRP LIME 2011
ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
Conclusion
1. 80% of PRP supported CA farmers are food secure2. Lots of life changing stories on CA3. Good return on Donor Investment in CA
However;4. Only 40% of the cultivated area is under CA. - What could be limiting expansion?- What is the most limiting input? - Can mechanization be the answer? Affordability of
equipment by the very poor without credit support? (average annual cash incomes for the very poor are under USD500).
PRO POOR APPROACHES
Conclusions
2. Some principles not being adopted.- To what extend are we compromising yield benefits by not
adopting all the principles?- Trade offs with other competing objectives – eg winter
weeding and gardening?3. Affordability and availability of agricultural inputs. - If agricultural input assistance or subsidy is withdrawn can
the very poor afford? Will they continue with CA? - Capacity of agro-delears and input suppliers?
Additional information is available on our website
www.prpzim.info
SOCIAL PROTECTION
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!!