Post on 21-May-2022
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 1
Paradigm Shifts and the Development of Agricultural Mechanization in Sub
Saharan Africa: A Case Study of Farm Power.
By Geoffrey C. Mrema
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The development of agriculture in Sub Saharan Africa [SSA]using higher levels of farm power has had a chequered history
over the seven decades from 1945 to 2015. Agricultural mechanization has been widely [and still is] supported in SSA by
farmers, local leaders, policy makers and politicians. It has, however, been a controversial issue in some circles including
among external experts and commentators. The objective of this paper is to provide a summary background review of the
paradigm shifts which have occurred concerning the role of farm power in SSA agriculture over the period 1945-2015.
The mechanization paradigm of the 1950s & 60s did postulate that the provision of farm power, for field operations like
land preparation, would be through mechanical technologies like tractors, without necessarily evolving through a
transitional stage of using draft animals. This was seen then [in the 1950s and early 1960s] as a feasible option given the
land abundance status of many countries in SSA and the difficulties of finding alternative sources of farm power - low
population made the hand tool technology not a viable option and prevalence of the tsetse fly making use of draft animals
difficult in large areas of SSA. The development programs of most countries in SSA in the 1950s & 1960s crafted by the
departing colonial authorities with the assistance of major multilateral development agencies like the FAO, World Bank
etc., were based on this paradigm.
From mid 1960s, there were, however, concerns raised by several influential experts and organizations on the impact and
efficacy of the tractorization paradigm in mechanization programs in developing countries. These included the
intermediate technology movement which advocated for a more evolutionary approach through the so called
intermediate or appropriate technologies; the International Labour Organization [ILO] whose concern was the effect the
use of tractors had on employment of rural labourers and the environmental movement concerned with the impact on the
environment. A global expert consultation was convened by FAO and OECD in Rome in February 1975 to resolve the
issues involved. The consultation recommended selective or appropriate mechanization, which combines hand tool,
animal and mechanically powered agricultural implements and equipment suited to the physical, cultural, economic, and
technological environment of the country concerned. A consensus was also reached on the manpower requirements for
mechanization and the need to treat farm power as an input in agricultural production just like fertilizers, seeds etc. FAO
was requested to develop guidelines to help member countries in developing their agricultural mechanization strategies
[AMS]. The AMS guidelines were developed by FAO through wide consultation and released in 1981 which has been
implemented by several countries since then.
A new paradigm was proposed in 1987, specifically linking the development of agricultural mechanization in SSA to the
evolution of the farming systems as they intensify from shifting cultivation to more permanent production systems. This
paradigm attributed the lack of progress in mechanization in SSA to, inter alia the public sector dominated tractorization
programs of the 1960s & 70s. A study published by the World Bank in 1987 recommended a shift of assistance from tractors
to draft animal power [DAP]. There followed then a wave of relatively well funded DAP programs and networks
throughout SSA implemented for much of the 1990s. However, by 2005 it became apparent that the DAP programs and
networks were not the panaceas to the mechanization problem in SSA while tractor imports had significantly declined in
all countries. A re-examination of the whole process of agricultural mechanization development then commenced which
culminated in the approval, in 2018, of the Framework for Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization in Africa F-SAMA with its
ten priority elements.
The priority element no. 1 of F-SAMA is therefore: Boosting farm power through innovative business models. The goal is
to ubiquitously provide mechanization services including farm power as an input in agricultural production through
commercially sustainable enterprises. It is posited that development of the innovative business models and systems
through which the enterprises are enabled to offer mechanization services such as primary land preparation for a
significant part of the year and across countries and sub regions is the sure way to efficiently and effectively, boost the
availability of farm power to all the farming groups be they small, medium, or large scale through environmentally and
socio-economically sustainable mechanisms. Highlights of other key issues like size of tractors, impact on the
environment, human resources and the institutional framework required for successful implementation of this element of
F-SAMA are discussed. The SSA countries need to remain focused on the long-term goal as well as exchange information
and experience through the Africa-Mechanize platform if they are to succeed in implementing this element of F-SAMA. *********************************
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 2
INTRODUCTION
1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MECHANIZED AGRICULTURE USING HIGHER LEVELS OF FARM
POWER IN SUB SAHARAN AFRICA [SSA] HAS HAD A CHEQUERED HISTORY OVER THE
SEVEN DECADES PERIOD FROM 1945 TO 2015 [AUC/FAO, 2018]. DURING THIS PERIOD,
SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN DIRECTED AT IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS WITH
THE OBJECTIVE OF IMPROVING THE UTILIZATION OF FARM POWER AS AN
INDISPENSABLE INPUT IN INCREASING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND OVERALL
PRODUCTION [SEE FIG 1]. THIS HAS INVOLVED IMPROVED HAND TOOLS POWERED BY
HUMAN MUSCLES, THROUGH TO IMPLEMENTS USING DRAFT ANIMAL POWER [DAP] TO
MACHINERY & IMPLEMENTS POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES AND/OR
ELECTRIC MOTORS SUCH AS IN TRACTORS, COMBINE HARVESTERS, HAMMER MILLS
ETC. [SEE BOX 1 FOR STAGES IN AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION DEVELOPMENT]
2. Agricultural mechanization has been widely [and still is] supported in SSA by farmers, local
leaders, policy makers and politicians. It has, however, been a controversial subject in some circles
including among external experts and commentators [Dumont, 1966; de Wilde, 1967; Kline et al
1969; ILO, 1973; Pingali et al, 1987; IBRD, 1987; FAO,2008; FAO & UNIDO, 2009; FAO, 2013a&b].
During the 20th Century, the SSA region was land surplus, [and still is in some parts in the 21st
century considered to be a land surplus region] with comparatively low population density and in
most countries, wages remain relatively low (Binswanger, 1986; IBRD, 1987; FAO, 2015).
3. SSA is also the continent which is located almost entirely in the tropics thus making any farm work,
relying entirely on human muscles, to be ergonomically quite difficult and arduous [Passmore &
Durnin, 1955; Boshoff & Minto,1974]. This is particularly the case for the power intensive field
operations like primary land preparation using the hand hoe and hence the call by African Union
Commission [AUC] to confine the hand-hoe to the museum and relieve the farmer of the drudgery
associated with hand hoe tillage common on over 60% of the cultivated land as of 2015 [AUC/FAO,
2016]. The AUC also acknowledges the fact that if mechanization is to succeed in SSA then it must
be sustainable – commercially, environmentally, and socio-economically [See Box 2 for the Ten
Elements of F-SAMA- Framework for Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization in Africa].
4. Reflecting widespread acceptance that mechanization is desirable, the agricultural development
plans of many governments in the emerging independent African nations in the 1950s and 1960s
[and indeed even in Asia and Latin America], emphasized transforming the agriculture sector
through mechanization based on tractorization, among other things. These plans included, for
example, the Swynnerton plan in Kenya of 1954 as well as plans developed by the World Bank in
Tanzania [then known as Tanganyika] (IBRD, 1960), FAO in Nigeria (FAO, 1966) and national
experts in Ghana (Ghana, 1962), among others.
5. The objective of this paper is to provide a summary background review of the issues covered
during the development of the ten elements of the F-SAMA focusing specifically on the priority
element no 1: Boosting farm power through innovative business models. The paper provides an
analysis of the paradigm shifts which have occurred over the past several decades in the process
of assisting SSA countries in increasing the availability of farm power as an important component
of the agricultural mechanization inputs necessary for increasing agricultural productivity and
overall production in the region. The impact of these paradigm shifts on the quest of the SSA region
to attain progress in agricultural mechanization is discussed. The paper has been specifically
prepared to facilitate the discussions during the AfricaMechanize Webinar 3 session on the priority
element no 1 of F-SAMA.
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 3
Figure 1. The four phases of Africa’s agricultural mechanization evolution
THE TRACTORIZATION PARADIGM
6. The first mechanization paradigm was the one, which advocated for the provision of farm power,
for field operations like land preparation, through mechanical technologies like tractors, without
necessarily evolving through a transitional stage of using draft animals i.e., direct tractorization.
This was seen then [in 1950s and early 1960s] as a feasible option given the land abundance status
of many countries in SSA and the difficulties of finding alternative sources of farm power - low
population made the hand tool technology not a viable option and prevalence of the tsetse fly
making use of draft animals difficult in large areas of SSA.
7. The tractorization paradigm was justified and supported then, notwithstanding the failure of one
of the largest mechanized agriculture projects ever attempted in the world which was implemented
in SSA – the Groundnut Scheme in Tanganyika [GST] in 1946-52 [Wood, 1950; Lord, 1963; Johnson
& Ruttan, 1994; Rizo, 2004; and Esselborn, 2013]. This failure was attributed to, among other things,
poor planning coupled with the use of inappropriate mechanical technologies and implements as
well as biological and agronomical constraints. The successful adoption of tractors by the European
settler farmers in eastern and southern Africa during 1945-65 reinforced the case for the
tractorization paradigm. Also, early indications of success in commercial agricultural production
by indigenous African small and medium scale farmers [SSFs & MSFs] in several settlement
schemes which had been established in parts of eastern, southern, and west Africa during the 1950s
& 60s reinforced the case for the tractorization approach [Mayne (1954, 1955 &1956); deWilde, 1967;
Kates et al 1969; Kline et al, 1969; Anthony, 1970; Maina & MacArthur,1970; Bunting, 1970; Gemiill
& Eicher, 1973].
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 4
Box 1: Stages in agricultural mechanization development
Box 2. The ten priority elements of the Framework for SAMA [F-SAMA]
The framework for SAMA has ten priority elements with - eight of them clustered around three sustainability
pillars [Commercial, Environmental and Socio-economic] and two elements are overarching and cut across. Each
element has several options, and it is up to countries and sub-regions to decide on which one to pursue
depending on prevailing local conditions. The ten elements are:
A. UNDER THE COMMERCIAL SUSTAINABILITY PILLAR: Element 1: Boosting farm power through appropriate technologies and innovative business models. Element 2: Promoting innovative financing mechanisms for agricultural mechanization. Element 3: Building sustainable systems for manufacture and distribution of agricultural mechanization
inputs. Element 4: Sustainable mechanization across agri-food value chains
Element 5: Innovative systems for sustainable technology development and transfer. B. UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY PILLAR:
i. Element 6: Sustainable transformation of land preparation and crop/animal husbandry practices C. UNDER SOCIO-ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
i. Element 7: Social sustainability and the roles of small-scale farmers, women and youth ii. Element 8: Human resources development and capacity building for SAMA D. OVERARCHING ELEMENTS FOR SAMA: i. Element 9: Need for a long-term vision: Policy and strategy issues. ii. Element 10: Creating sustainable institutions for regional cooperation and networking.
[from pg. 82-83 of FAO & AUC, 2018].
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 5
8. The tractors and implements were supplied through the private sector with the main global
manufacturers establishing their own franchises of dealers etc. throughout the SSA countries and
the local financial institutions were actively involved in providing credit. Government managed
and operated Tractor Hire Schemes [THS] were established in areas where the private sector was
not strong and in several countries state farms were established to produce cereal grains. The
tractors were used in the production of many commodities - maize, rice, wheat, sorghum and
millets, pulses as well as cash crops like cotton, sisal, sugar cane, tea, and coffee. In most cases the
tractors were used for primary land ploughing and harrowing with, in many cases, subsequent
operations like planting and weeding being done by a combination of hand tools and/ or draft
animals [deWilde, 1967; Anthony, 1970; Bunting, 1970; Gordon, 1970; Lele, 1976; Gohlich, 1984].
9. Tractor numbers in use in SSA increased from 1945 and by 1960 SSA had more tractors in use than
any of the other developing country regions/continents [Fig 2]. Most of the tractors were privately
and/or cooperatively owned and managed with those under government THS being less than 10%
of the national fleet [Kolawole, 1972; Muchiri & Mbara, 1991, Kaul, 1991; Mrema, 1991].
Figure 2. Tractor use by region, 1961–2000.
THE INTERMEDIATE TECHNOLOGY PARADIGM
10. There were, however, concerns raised by several influential experts and organizations, from mid-
1960s, on the impact and efficacy of the tractorization paradigm in mechanization programs in the
developing countries. These concerns were raised mostly for programs in Asia but also on those
in SSA and Latin America. They included:
A prominent French rural development expert and politician, Professor Rene Dumont, in his
famous 1996 book, False Start in Africa stated: ‘The problem of mechanization is crucial because
African elites are seduced by the idea of modern machines. It is difficult to convince them that agricultural
progress does not depend on immediate and complete mechanization…. It is not that mechanization is
1 Asia includes the People’s Republic of China, Japan, and India as well as Oceania and Pacific countries. 2 North America includes United States, Canada, Bermuda, and Greenland. 3 Sub-Saharan Africa includes all countries on the continent except North African Arab countries (Algeria, Morocco,
Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan). 4 Europe includes ex-USSR up to 1990, thereafter including the Russian Federation and Ukraine and the Baltic States.
ex-Asian Soviet Republics are excluded. 5 LAC includes Latin America and the Caribbean. 6 Near East includes all mid-Eastern countries and North African Arab countries Source: FAOSTAT/AGS (2004).
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 6
impossible on African soil. Machines will be in wide use in the future, but there are still too many obstacles
……’ [Dumont, 1966]. The ideas propounded by Professor Dumont, where he was critical of the
rapid tractorization policies promoted in some African countries in the 1960s, epitomized the
framework for agricultural mechanization then advocated by the French Colonial and post-
colonial systems. This was based on an evolutionary approach whereby the farm power
situation was expected to evolve gradually from the hand tool technology through animal
powered implements to mechanically powered machinery and equipment over several decades
if not centuries [Dumont, 1966; Carrilon & LeMoigne, 1975; Mazoyer & Roidart, 2006].
The intermediate technology movement which was becoming an influential voice in forums on
the development agenda also opposed the tractorization paradigm citing several reasons –
balance of payments, creating unemployment and other social concerns. They therefore
advocated for more intermediate technologies such as improved hand tools, DAP etc. as an
alternative to tractorization both in the short and medium term. The book Small is Beautiful by
renowned economist Dr. A. Schumacher, which advocated for intermediate technologies, was
highly influential especially to those in developed countries who advocated for the intermediate
technology paradigm in agricultural development. Many Intermediate/Appropriate
Technology [IT/AT] centers were established throughout SSA and in Asia to develop and
transfer such technologies during 1970 to 2000. [Eicher & Baker, 1982; IRRI, 1983; Moens &
Siepmann, 1984; Starkey, 1988; FAO, 2008].
During 1970–1973, the International Labor Organization (ILO) of the United Nations [UN]
undertook several case studies on mechanization in the developing world – the reports of which
had a major impact on policy debates on tractorization. The ILO studies supported the concerns
expressed by, among others, the intermediate technology movement, that introduction of
tractors and other mechanically powered machinery and implements was leading to serious
unemployment of farm laborers and workers in all the four continents of the developing world
(ILO, 1973). These studies reinforced the case of those who were questioning the rationale of
development strategies that emphasized mechanization and advanced mechanical technologies
in agriculture.
The first global oil price hikes of 1973, which ostensibly made use of tractors appear even more
uneconomical in the developing world, especially for the smallholder sector [Makhijani &
Poole, 1975; Fluck & Baird, 1979; Stout, 1979] strengthened the case against the tractorization
paradigm. This did significantly strengthen the case in support of the use of improved hand
tools, draught animal technology and other renewable forms of energy. The poor performance
of government-sponsored and operated tractor hire schemes [THS] in several developing
countries further weakened the arguments for the tractorization paradigm [Seager &
Fieldson,1984]. This is notwithstanding the fact that number of tractors in Government operated
THS was less than 10% of the total number in use in the national tractor fleets in most SSA
countries [Kaul, 1991].
11. In response to the growing criticism of tractorization paradigm, supporters of mechanization
scorned the opponents who especially feared creation of unemployment and compared them to
the Luddites in England in the nineteenth century, who smashed textile machinery for fear it would
create unemployment. They argued that if agriculture in developing countries is perceived as a
“gigantic programme” for relieving unemployment, then these countries would continuously face
hunger and massive starvation. On the issue of the high amount of energy required for operating
these tractors, the proponents of mechanization argued that the fossil fuels used in agricultural
machinery, even in the most advanced countries, accounted for less than 5 percent of the total
energy used in agricultural production [Kline et al. 1969; Esmay and Faidley, 1972; Khan, 1972;
Stout, 1974; Fluck & Baird, 1979, Adams,1988].
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 7
TOWARDS A CONSENSUS – SELECTIVE /APPROPRIATE
MECHANIZATION PARADIGM
12. By 1970, it was apparent that the role of modern mechanization technologies in agricultural
development in the developing countries, was in many cases, a controversial issue. This was
particularly the case on the role of farm power in agricultural development. The controversy was
such that conflicting advice was being proffered to developing countries with, at times, two UN
technical agencies [e.g., FAO and ILO] taking diametrically opposite views on the ubiquitous use
of tractors.
13. To bridge the gap between the two viewpoints among policy makers and development specialists,
FAO and the OECD convened an Expert Consultation on the Effects of Farm Mechanization on
Production and Employment in February 1975 in Rome, Italy to discuss the issues involved (FAO,
1975). The experts at the consultation agreed that:
Farm mechanization should lead to increased production while reducing the drudgery
associated with performing agricultural tasks using hand tool technology. With respect to its
unemployment effects, however, the experts noted that there were so many variables that could
affect employment in agriculture that it was extremely difficult to isolate the effects of farm
mechanization. They concluded that urgent action was required to determine whether
continued growth in farm mechanization was “socially desirable”, which could only be done
by conducting field studies in the countries concerned.
The consultation then recommended appropriate mechanization, which combines hand tool,
animal and mechanically powered agricultural implements and equipment suited to the
physical, cultural, economic, and technological environment of the country concerned.
Further, the need to train manpower for all aspects of agricultural mechanization programmes
was highlighted, noting specifically that “manpower training requirements for extension in the
use, or introduction of farm mechanization based on animal power were considerable,
particularly if attempts are made to introduce draught animals in areas where there was no
tradition of animal husbandry and use of draught animals.” There were also recommendations for developing countries to formulate agricultural
mechanization policies and develop strategies for their implementation, and for carrying out
research in agricultural mechanization within the national agricultural research systems.
Finally, there were specific recommendations to FAO, particularly on the need for developing
guidelines for determining and evaluating appropriate forms and levels of farm mechanization
to suit different ecological, social, and economic conditions of the developing countries.
It was suggested that FAO provide support to governments in setting up advisory services in
this field, strengthening its information services to provide multidisciplinary information on
agricultural mechanization.
14. Following this 1975 Rome Expert Consultation, FAO did convene several other technical
consultations and meetings to reach a consensus on the role of mechanization [specifically farm
power] as an input in agricultural and rural development. These consultations did culminate in the
fifth meeting of the Committee on Agriculture [COAG] of the FAO Council held in April 1979
where a consensus was reached that agricultural mechanization was an indispensable input to
rural development. This therefore led to the second major Paradigm as defined by the 1975
Consultation: SELECTIVE or APPROPRIATE MECHANIZATION based on the level of power
input per hectare, be it from the muscles of humans and/or draft animals OR from mechanical
technologies. Thus, progress in mechanization thereafter has been measured in terms of available
total power per hectare [hp/acre or kW/ha].
15. Papers by Professor Giles of North Carolina University [Giles (1966 & 1975)] did provide the
conceptual framework and justification for inclusion of farm power together with the biochemical
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 8
inputs [fertilizers, improved seeds, and crop protection pesticides] as being a ‘first-generation’
factor in the process of transformation of farming and agriculture in general through the green
revolution. [ Mellor, 1998; Ruttan,1998; and Reardon, 1998]. The concept of minimum power per
hectare became the norm in agricultural mechanization strategy formulation- in his 1975 paper
Giles recommended a minimum of 0.5hp/ha from different sources [human; draft animals and
mechanical power]. [See Table 1 for Projections 2005 to 2050 of kW/ha for India]
16. The Guidelines for agricultural mechanization strategy [AMS] were developed by FAO and were
technically reviewed extensively and subsequently approved by the Committee on Agriculture
[COAG] of the FAO Conference in 1981. They were released as FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin
No. 45 entitled Agricultural Mechanization in Development: Guidelines for Strategy Formulation
[FAO, 1981]. The main objective of these AMS guidelines was to define and put in proper
perspective the relationship between agricultural mechanization and overall national
development objectives in the developing countries and to provide technical guidelines for
appropriate mechanization strategy formulation.
17. While these guidelines were not meant to provide a ‘cookbook’ recipe that could be applied to
every development situation pertaining to agricultural mechanization, it nevertheless has
remained the main basic reference document for technical guidance in mechanization strategy
formulation over the past four decades. It was extensively used in Asia region during 1975-2015
under the Regional Network for Agricultural Mechanization [RNAM] now CSAM {FAO-RAP,
2014]. During the three decades, 1985-2015, FAO has provided technical support to many countries
in Africa and elsewhere helping them to develop their AMSs.
Table 1: Projections for mechanization in India (Singh, 2013)
Item 2005 2015 2030 2050
Agricultural workers (millions) 230 280 340 350
Draught animals (millions) 53 37 18 8
Tractors (millions) 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.0
Power tillers (thousands) 152 250 400 500
Diesel engines (millions) 6.4 7.3 7.8 8.5
Electric motors (millions) 17 25 35 40
Power (kW/ha) 1.5 2.2 3.5 4.5
NEW IDEAS AND PARADIGM DURING 1985-2005
18. A new paradigm for agricultural mechanization in SSA emerged from the Pingali et al (1987)
study published as a World Bank publication by the John Hopkins University Press and entitled:
Agricultural Mechanization and the Evolution of Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. It
was conceptually anchored on earlier work by Boserup, 1965 & Ruthernberg, 1980 and associated
with a previous study on economics of tractor use in Asia by Binswanger, 1978. The Pingali et al
1987 book was followed by a World Bank report entitled: IBRD (1987): Agricultural
Mechanization: Issues and Options -The World Bank, Washington DC. {85 pages] prepared by
Hans Binswanger and Graeme Donovan with assistance of Raymond Fabre and Pabru Pingali.
19. The IBRD (1987) report as well as the Pingali et al (1987) book, had several recommendations which
appear to have inordinately influenced the policies and priorities on agricultural mechanization of
the World Bank and several other development and donor agencies during the two decades period
from 1987 to 2007. Both the Pingali et al 1987 and IBRD (1987) reports were particularly critical of
encouraging increased use of tractors in agriculture in SSA and the developing countries in general
and instead recommended use of what they called appropriate technologies such as DAP.
20. The conceptual framework for the Pingali et al 1987 was anchored on the assumption that the
increase in overall demand for mechanization in SSA was likely to have been driven by the
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 9
intensification of farming systems and by broader economic transformation. From the literature
on farming systems evolution (Boserup 1965; Ruthernberg 1980) they then suggest that the demand
for mechanization is linked to the process of intensification of the farming systems—characterized
by more frequent land preparation and a shortened fallow period—driven by population growth
and market development.
21. Pingali et al 1987 recommended that the indicator of the level of farming system intensification is
the “R-value,” which was proposed by Ruthernberg (1980), and which measures the share of
cultivated area in a particular year to total agricultural land. Countries or areas with a high R value,
they posited indicated that they have increasing farming system intensity and hence higher
demand for overall farm power inputs, which could be supplied by human, animal, or mechanical
powers. However, this process is also accompanied by economic transformation, which raises the
relative price of rural labor, leading to an increased demand for mechanical technologies that can
substitute for labour.
22. However, other socio-economists such as Darrity 1980 has suggested that, the Boserup, 1965 and
Ruthernberg, 1980 analysis of farming systems, as interpreted by Pingali et al 1987, for
mechanization in SSA, is more suitable for analysis of farming systems which are still at the
exceedingly early stages of development and which are still practising shifting agriculture [or
‘primitive agriculture’ in 18th & 19th century as Darrity, 1980 defines it]. Morrison 2006 compares
the Boserup, 1965 analysis to what pertained in India during pre-colonial times in the 18th century.
The Boserup, 1965 analysis may thus not be that relevant in defining the process of mechanization
in farming systems which are evolving to higher levels of mechanized agriculture involving
internal combustion engines as it is occurring in SSA during the 4th quarter of 20th century and 1st
quarter of 21st Century.
23. Further, to be able to plan and formulate mechanization strategies and projects for a specific
area/district/country one would have to be able to compute the ‘R’ – Ruthernberg values. Given
the paucity of data in most SSA countries it would be quite difficult to get these R values. It is also
important to note that the Pingali et al (1987) study was undertaken during the early part of the
third quarter of the 20th Century when the farming systems [FS] as well as the intermediate
technology [IT] movements & paradigms were in vogue in the agricultural development arena
[Eicher & Baker, 1982; Collinson, 2001]. Further, at that time there were no Divisions of Agricultural
Mechanization & Engineering Services [DAMES] operating in most of the countries in the SSA
region. As a follow up to the FAO (1981) recommendations and guidelines on agricultural
mechanization strategy, the DAMES were established in most SSA countries during the period
1990 to 2010 and they are staffed mostly by agricultural engineers who are more conversant with
kW/ha rather than the ‘R’ values.
RESPONSE OF SSA TO THE NEW IDEAS & PARADIGM
24. FAO and other technical agencies such as the Commonwealth Secretariat [COMSEC] in London
both of which had provided technical support to agricultural mechanization programs [including
for tractor projects] implemented by Ministries of Agriculture [MoAs] in most African countries in
1960-80 were particularly put in an invidious position by the IBRD (1987) and Pingali et al 1987
papers. Likewise, the MoAs were in a quandary as the recommendations of Pingali et al (1987) on
tractor mechanization were against the advice they had received over a long period from the
international technical agencies like FAO & COMSEC and even the World Bank itself [IBRD, 1960,
1981 & 1989].
25. FAO had weathered an earlier thrust against use of the tractor in Third World agriculture [due to
its, allegedly, unemployment effects] which was led by a sister UN agency [ILO - the International
Labour Organization] in the early 1970s [Clayton, 1973, ILO, 1973] as explained above. FAO had
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 10
done this through organizing a ‘global expert consultation’ on ‘Mechanization and Employment’
in Rome in 1975 [FAO/OECD, 1975] where a consensus was reached that the use of tractors did not
necessarily lead to increased unemployment overall and the need for member countries to be
provided with technical guidelines to facilitate the formulation of agricultural mechanization
strategies. FAO had by 1980, developed these technical guidelines and was in the process of
piloting their implementation in several countries in Asia and Africa [FAO, 1981]. Surprisingly to
FAO, neither the proceedings of the global expert panel consultation [FAO/OECD, 1975] nor the
guidelines developed for strategy formulation [FAO,1981] were even cited in the Binswanger,
{1978]; IBRD (1987) and Pingali et al, 1987 reports/publications.
26. When the Pingali et al (1987) document as well as the IBRD 1987 one, were released, it took some
time before their impact was felt in the operational side on implementation of mechanization
programs. The ideas in Pingali et al (1987) were quite new especially to those who were responsible
for policy and strategy for agricultural mechanization including project implementation. These
were largely agricultural engineers newly graduated from universities in Europe and North
America and were not that familiar with the theories of Boserup and Ruthernberg which were
based on what Professor Darrity of Duke University has characterized as ‘Anthropological
Economics’ [Darrity, 1980]. Even the farming systems approach was then, in mid 1980s quite new
in SSA and pilot projects were being implemented by research divisions of the Ministries of
Agriculture with donor assistance in some countries in SSA [Eicher & Baker, 1982; Collinson, 2001].
27. It is also important to recognize that many of the mechanization policies and as well as
programs/projects implemented in the 1960s by most SSA countries had been formulated with
technical support from the main international development agencies such as FAO; ILO; UNDP;
World Bank etc. as part of the rolling five-year national development programs [deWilde, 1967;
Bunting, 1970; FAO, 1975 & 1981; COMSEC, 1990]. Technical guidance was therefore being
provided to member countries in accordance with what was then accepted development
paradigms for agricultural mechanization. ****Much of the technical knowledge on mechanization
was a carry-over of what had been developed during the last years of colonial rule in the 1950s &
60s as well as experience gained in implementation of similar programs in other parts of the World
after the Second Word War [Mayne, 1954; 1955 & 1956; deWilde, 1967; Hall, 1968; Kline et al 1969;
Bunting, 1970; Oluwasami, 1975; Eicher & Baker, 1982; Crossley & Kilgour, 1983; Seager et al 1984,
Gibb, 1988].
28. What was being proposed under the Pingali et al (1987) framework was, therefore, a new way of
thinking about agricultural mechanization and had not been part of the knowledge and advice
provided by the technical agencies. Indeed, the Pingali et al 1987 paradigm and framework were
in many instances contradicting what FAO had just published, in 1981, as a guideline to its member
countries on Agricultural Mechanization strategy formulation and the content of its technical
advice to member countries in developing their strategies. These FAO Guidelines [FAO, 1981] had
been developed following the consensus reached at the Global Consultation on Agricultural
Mechanization and Employment which FAO & OECD had organized in 1975 in Rome,
[FAO/OECD, 1975] as explained above.
29. It is also important to recognize that agricultural mechanization policies and strategies were and
are still being handled in most SSA countries by agricultural engineering/mechanization [DAMES]
divisions in collaboration with the planning divisions of the ministries of agriculture. These
DAMES were mostly then and are still staffed by agricultural engineers who would have found it
difficult to follow the proposals by Pingali et al as it was contrary to their basic training. The
Ministries of Agriculture requested for clarifications from the World Bank as well as from the
technical agencies on what they should follow between the two options. Further, even in the main
donor agencies there was confusion on what was the best approach in this regard [COMSEC,1990].
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 11
30. Ministers of Agriculture of the countries in the Commonwealth of Nations requested the
Commonwealth Secretariat to convene an expert consultation to discuss the contradictions on the
technical advice being provided by the leading agencies [COMSEC, 1990]. An important point here
is that eight of the eleven countries covered in the Pingali et al (1987) field survey were English
speaking and/or members of the Commonwealth of Nations [Ethiopia; Botswana; Kenya; Tanzania;
Zambia; Nigeria and India as well as Cameroon which is partially English speaking]. The
Commonwealth Secretariat convened such a consultation workshop at the Ahmadu Bello
University in the northern Nigerian city of Zaria on 13 -17 August 1990.This workshop was
attended by 60 senior experts from 9 African countries [Botswana; Gambia; Ghana; Kenya; Lesotho;
Nigeria; Swaziland; Tanzania and Zambia] as well as representatives of GTZ; UK; UN-ECA/FAO
and India.
31. Resource persons had been commissioned to prepare overview papers and each country
representative was required to prepare a paper on the status of agricultural mechanization in their
respective countries focusing on success cases as well as failure ones. The resource papers included
those from FAO on Agricultural Mechanization Strategy Formulation: Procedures and Issues; India – on
Formulation and Implementation of Mechanization Policies in India; from GTZ on Small four-wheel
tractors for the tropics and sub tropics as well as an overview paper on the main issues on agricultural
mechanization in Africa specifically focusing on what was in the PBB framework.
32. Professor R. N. Kaul – an Indian National with long experience of agricultural mechanization
programs in SSA and Asia and who was then working [as an expatriate] as Professor of
Agricultural Engineering and Programme Leader of the Agricultural Mechanization Programme
at the Institute of Agricultural Research of the Ahmadu Bello University in Samaru, Zaria, Nigeria
was assigned the task of preparing the overview resource paper entitled: Agricultural
Mechanization in Africa: An Overview of Main Issues [Kaul 1991]. On the Pingali et al (1987)
report, Prof Kaul had the following remarks:
‘….. Pingali et al (1987) in a study of 30 tractor projects in Sub-Saharan Africa from 1945 –
1980 (7 small-holder; 13 Government Tractor hire schemes and 10 block cultivation
schemes) concluded “In many tractor project areas no tractors can be found today. Where any
tractors are still being used, their use is inevitably associated with rice cultivation. But even these
surviving tractors today are privately owned. The transition from the hand hoe to animal-draft power,
where its use is appropriate, continued to be made despite the emphasis on tractors. Of the seventeen
attempts to bypass animal traction for tractorization only three succeeded, all of them associated with
low-land rice cultivation schemes” Pingali et al 1987.’.
Thirty tractor schemes (with less than 3000 tractors total), spanning over a period of 35
years (1945-1980) and covering the entire SSA region is just a small sample for one to
conclude with such a blanket prescription. In addition, animal traction has been even less
successful despite over 80 years of extension effort………’. Kaul, 1991.
33. Eight case studies on status of agricultural mechanization were presented from seven African
countries [Botswana; Ghana; Kenya; Nigeria; Swaziland; Tanzania and Zambia] as well as from
India. Five of the 7 case studies were from countries which were covered in the Pingali et al 1987
rapid field survey. These papers gave a different picture of the status of agricultural mechanization
in those seven countries – being more objective and unbiased in contrast to the perspective
presented in Pingali et al, 1987. As an example, is the status of Government operated tractor hire
services – while these were operational in 1960s [and even then, had less than 10% of the tractor
fleets in all the countries], by mid 1980s most of them had been privatized with the tractors
thereafter being operated by the private sector. The case study from India presented by Dr S. K.
Misra – The Joint Commissioner in-charge of Agricultural Engineering Services at headquarters of
the All-India Ministry of Agriculture in New Delhi gave a different perspective of the agricultural
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 12
mechanization situation in India [Misra, 1991] compared to what had been presented in the
Binswanger 1978 paper on tractors in South Asia.
34. The report of the Workshop was published by the Commonwealth Secretariat as COMSEC (1990):
Report of a Workshop on Agricultural Mechanization in Commonwealth Africa: Zaria, Nigeria
13-17 August 1990. The technical papers presented were published separately by the
Commonwealth Secretariat in London under the Title: COMSEC (1991) Agricultural
Mechanization Policies and Strategies in Africa: Case Studies from Commonwealth African
Countries. Copies of the publication can be obtained from the Commonwealth Secretariat in
London, UK. Soft copies of all COMSEC Technical Publications can be accessed from the website
of the OECD in Paris.
35. In addition to endorsing the comments by Professor Kaul on the prescriptions of Pingali et al 1987
as summarized above, the workshop also, among other things, noted that:
“……Too often in SSA failed agricultural mechanization schemes have been subjected to cursory eco-
nomic review, without the required detailed technical analysis, whilst success cases have not been ade-
quately analysed and publicised.
Too often blanket prescriptions have been made based on very rudimentary data and flawed methodology.
There should not be blanket prescriptions to the African agricultural mechanization problem – the heter-
ogeneity of the agricultural systems must be appreciated, and this should be built in the process of agri-
cultural mechanization policy and strategy formulation……” [COMSEC, 1990 &1991].
36. The workshop did recommend the need to facilitate more information exchange on both failed and
successful mechanization projects as earlier recommended in the 1967 World Bank study led by Dr
de Wilde [de Wilde, 1967; COMSEC,1990]. Further, the Workshop noted the cautious approach and
recommendations on tractorization made during the deWilde mission in 1967 when public sector
operated THS were more common as compared to the prescriptive and negative recommendations
made by the Pingali et al team in 1987 when most public sector THS had been privatized [COMSEC,
1991].
IMPACT OF THE NEW PARADIGM ON AGRICULTURAL
MECHANIZATION DEVELOPMENT IN SSA
37. The net result of this new paradigm and the corresponding policies implemented, was a stagnation
and/or decline in numbers of tractors imported into the region. As reported in FAO, 2008 while in
1961 through to 1970 SSA had more tractors in use than Brazil, China, India, and Thailand by the
year 2000 India, China and Brazil had 6.9, 4.4, and 3.7 times the number of tractors in use in SSA
[including South Africa] [see Fig 3]. In 1998, the hand tool technology dominates land preparation
in 65% of the cultivated land in SSA compared to 20, 25, 30, and 40% in the Near East, Latin
America; South Asia; East Asia regions respectively [see Fig 4]. The number of tractors in use in
2000 in all SSA countries was almost equal to the number in Thailand which in 1990 had less than
20% of the number in SSA then. Annual imports of tractors in all the SSA declined from an average
of over 10,000 units in the early 1980s to under 3000 units by 1995. [See Fig 5]. This is particularly
important as the massive increase in the use of tractors in Asian agriculture which occurred during
the period 1975-2015 had disproved the findings of the Binswanger 1978 report on the economics
of tractor use in Asian agriculture [Singh, (2001; 2013); Verma, 2006; FAO-RAP, 2015]. [see fig 6 for
increases in tractor imports in Thailand, Pakistan; and tractors in use in India].
38. The IBRD (1987) report made specific recommendations to the World Bank and other donors to
discourage assistance for mechanization projects with tractor components and instead they should
focus their assistance to draft animal power and implements as well as the intermediate
technologies. Thereafter, during the period 1985 to 2005, there was active and large donor
supported programs of promoting DAP and other appropriate technologies in agriculture
throughout SSA [ Starkey, (1986); IBRD (1987 & 1989)]. National and regional animal traction
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 13
networks were established throughout SSA and heavily supported by donor agencies {Starkey,
1988 & 1998]. This was accompanied by a corresponding decrease in donor support to
mechanization programs with tractor components. Most countries in SSA were then implementing
the Economic Structural Adjustment Programs [ESAPs] with the support of the World Bank and
IMF and they were discouraged from investing in programs with tractor mechanization
components [IBRD, 1987 &1989].
39. This new paradigm appears to have significantly influenced policy options of the major donors on
assistance for agricultural mechanization programs with tractor components in SSA. This is
exemplified by, among others, the increased emphasis and funding for Draft Animal Power
[DAP] projects/programs during the period 1985 to 2005; Regional and sub-regional as well as
national networks on animal traction technology were established throughout SSA, donors
provided support to establish DAP research and extension programs and centres, several large
workshops and seminars on DAP were organized [WATNESA; ATNESA etc] as well as
publications were published during the period [Kjoerby,1983; Starkey and associates, 1985; 1986;
1989; Nwuba & Kaul, 1986]. Funding for projects with tractor components was reduced
significantly.
Fig. 3. Tractors in use in Africa compared in other developing countries.
40. Also, the Appropriate Technology/Intermediate Technology [AT/IT] movement became
prominent in the mechanization debate and activities in SSA. Many AT/IT centres and programs
20 25 3040
6520
25
30
40
25
6050
40
2010
Near East and North Africa
Latin America & Caribbean
S Asia E Asia Sub-Saharan Africa
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Fig 4. Proportion of Land Cultivated by Different Sources of Farm Power - 1998
Tractor
DAP
Hand
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 14
funded by donors and national governments were established at national /regional levels
throughout SSA during the period 1975 to 2000 developing several types of prototypes [e.g., FMDU
in Botswana; RTDU in Kenya; AATP in Tanzania etc.]. The CGIAR system reduced its involvement
in agricultural engineering & mechanization research and the units for research in these area at the
founding IARCs [IRRI, IITA, ICRISAT etc] were phased out in the 1990s. These had been quite
active in the earlier years and were the ‘unsung heroes’ in terms of their contribution to the success
of the green revolution especially in Asia [Khan, 1972; Brader, 1994; Bell et al 1998; Okali et al 1997;
White, 2000; FAO,2008; Lantin, 2013; FAO-RAP (2014 & 2015)].
Figure 5. Imports of Tractors in SSA Countries [FAO/AGST2008]
Figure 6. Tractors in use in different Asian Countries [FAO/AGST-2008]
SSA - Imports of Tractors (excluding S. Africa)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98 0
Thailand - Nos of 2 wheel Tractors
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1995
Th
ou
san
ds
Thailand - Nos of 4 wheel tractors (15-85 hp.)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1995
India - Numbers of 4 Wheel Tractors
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
Th
ou
san
ds
Pakistan - Numbers of 4 Wheel Tractors
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 15
OTHER ISSUES ON PARADIGMS ON FARM POWER
Environmental Issues and Farm Power
41. There has always been a concern on the impact of increased mechanization on the environment in
Africa. As Colin Maher, a leading soil scientist in Eastern Africa noted in 1950; ‘……the grave erosion
which occurs on ploughland from time to time has often induced an ‘old timer’ to say ruefully that we should
never have put a plough into Africa’ [Maher, 1950]. Also, the environmental field in Africa as often
inspired by counter parts in Europe is particularly prone to passions as Anderson & Groove (1987)
noted ‘ …Much of the emotional as distinct from the economic investment which Europe made in Africa has
manifested itself in a wish to protect the natural environment as a special kind of ‘Eden’ for the purposes of
European psyche rather than a complex and changing environment in which people have had actually to
live…’ . During the colonial period the conservation movement was split between those who
focused on erosion problems on the lands farmed by indigenous natives and those who focused on
erosion issues on the large-scale commercial farms operated mostly by European settler farmers
[Tiffen et al 1994; Rowland (1974 & 1994); Kayombo & Mrema, 1998].
42. As noted in AUC/FAO, 2018, the conservation tillage technology has been adopted mostly by large
scale farmers in Eastern and Southern Africa [ACT, 2015 & 2017]. Also, the Conservation
Agriculture [CA] movement is gaining traction in SSA and has particularly strong views on
tillage/plowing of land which may influence policy on agricultural mechanization. The current
thrust is to convert from conventional tillage [CT] [practiced on 97% of cultivated land] to
conservation agriculture practiced on about 3% of cultivated land in SSA. The issue therefore is
more of the type of implements used rather than the power source. Several of the IARCs have
programs on CA in eastern and southern Africa even though there are divided opinions, among
key stakeholders of the CGIAR system, on extent of adoption and suitability of CA techniques to
small holder farmers in Africa and Asia as evidenced by the Nebraska Declaration of 2014 {(Baker
et al, (2006); Friedrich & Kassam, 2012; Friedrich, (2013), CGIAR (2013); Corbeels et al, (2014);
Stevenson et al (2014)]. These issues and concerns should be considered in agricultural
mechanization policies and strategies in Africa especially as they tend to impact on the type of farm
power used as well as human health issues [FAO-AUC, 2018].
43. The key environmental issue as related to sustainable agricultural mechanization in SSA is
concerned is to recognize the fact that all over the world conservation agriculture [CA] and
specifically conservation tillage [CT] has been successfully adopted where the farm power problem
has been solved. So far in SSA large scale farmers [LSFs] who have largely tackled the farm power
problem are increasingly adopting CT & CA because it makes economic sense for them to do so.
Medium Scale Farmers [MSFs] who in several countries are acquiring their own powered
machinery for their own farms and are offering mechanization hire services to other farmers [both
small and other medium] are likely to be the next adopters of CT and CA practices provided the R
& D system comes up with the required appropriate implements. As noted in Element 6 of F-SAMA
enhanced adoption of CA requires sustainable provision of minimum levels of farm power.
Tackling the farm power constraint is therefore critical for environmental sustainability. This is
particularly the case in those sub-regions of SSA where land preparation in over 80% of the
cultivated land is still done by the hand tool technology [Fig 7].
Small and Large Tractors Paradigm
44. Another issue which is being repeatedly stated by external actors as a fact is that African countries
use high horse-power tractors compared to Asia where, it is indicated that small tractors dominate.
There is a need to first define what are small tractors and what are large. Holtkamp (1989 & 1990)
defines small tractors as those under 26kW and they come either with one axle [hence 2 wheel-
tractor (2WT) or power tiller] or with two axles [hence small 4 wheel-tractor (4WT)] and the
medium and large 4-wheel tractors (4WT) with engines of over 26kW. The small 2WT or power
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 16
tillers have been tried in SSA in two waves, first in the 1960s when they failed miserably and the
second wave from 2005 with over 80% of them imported in to four African countries [Madagascar;
South Africa, Nigeria and Tanzania] where they appear to be successful in tillage of wetlands
[either irrigated or in floodplains] for paddy production and in general transportation in rural areas
with poor road infrastructure [IRRI, 1983; FACASI, 2015; Baudron et al 2015, IFPRI, 2020]. On the
other hand, there were 45 prototypes of the small 4WT developed in the 1960s-80s all over the
World including the Kabanyolo [Uganda] and Tinkabi [Swaziland], Bouyer {France] and Multi-
trac [Germany]. Only the Tinkabi and Bouyer reached a production level of about 1000 units by
mid 1980s [Gohlich, 1984; Holtkamp, 1989 & 1991].
45. In several recent papers & reports there are unverified and/or incorrect statements about these
small tractors especially on their power capacity and comparison of their acceptability/adoption in
Asia cf. their potential role and adoption in SSA [Diao et al 2020]. There has been considerable
research on soil mechanics and tillage related to, among other factors, the power requirements and
testing of different tillage implements in Africa over the past five decades (Boshoff 1966; Boshoff &
Minto, 1974; Willcocks & Twomlow,1992; FACASI, 2015). Let us use these research findings which
are based on fundamental principles of soil mechanics and engineering to decide on what type of
tractors and implements are suitable for SSA as recommended in the F-SAMA document
[AUC/FAO, 2018]. So far much of the advocacy for increased use of low horse-power tractors in
SSA appears to be based largely on socio-economic reasons coupled with inappropriate
comparison of the Asian and SSA situation and farming systems rather than on basic principles of
soil mechanics and engineering [AUC/FAO, 2018]. Besides the different sub-regions of SSA have
different power requirements given their soil conditions and level of development of the farm
power sector [see fig. 7 Farm Power in different regions of SSA].
Figure 7. Primary land preparation in Africa (2006)
Institutions and organizations for boosting Farm Power in SSA
46. The issue of the institutions and organizations needed for addressing the organizational, logistical and
managerial problems in the transition from essentially peasant and small scale dominated agriculture to
mechanized agricultural systems is critical. The AGS45 on AMS of FAO (1981) in chapter 11 on pg. 55
to 58 offers different models on Systems for Machinery Use.’ [FAO,1981]. Countries in SSA have
followed these guidelines to the extent possible. Recent research attention has been focused on the
models being piloted in Ghana and Nigeria with the AMSECs and AEHE [IFPRI, 2020]. But these
are basic units at district level which have been piloted in these two countries for less than a decade
and from an institutional perspective are still work-in- progress. It may therefore be too early to
draw lessons from them for scaling up elsewhere in SSA. Besides there are other institutional and
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 17
organizational models which have been tried elsewhere in SSA and/or Asia [e.g., block farms;
cooperatives; machine-rings; mechanization clusters etc.] for a much longer period and key lessons
could be drawn from them.
47. The key question, as noted in AUC/FAO, 2018, is what institutions and organizations would be
catalytic to the development of agricultural mechanization at national, sub-regional and regional
levels? What has worked elsewhere in SSA and Asia? Over the past 50 years several countries have
established strong DAMES at national level – what has been their impact cf. similar institutions
elsewhere [e.g. Asia]? What role did regional institutions in Asia such as
RNAM/APCAEM/CSAM/APO/AsDB as well as the UN and donor agencies play in the Asia
success cf. similar institutions in SSA [e.g., ARCT; ARCEDEM; AfDB]? The World Bank was in the
1980s pushing for the farming systems approach and/or Boserupian framework on evolution of
mechanization in SSA while FAO/UNDP/UNIDO had a different approach of AMSs – how did this
affect mechanization especially farm power in SSA? The CGIAR system has consistently been
spending 40-50% of its budget in SSA over the past 60 years - what role has it played in
mechanization of African agriculture cf. in Asia where there were strong programs for agricultural
mechanization in the 1960s to 80s at IRRI and ICRISAT? On the other hand, IITA the main IARC in
SSA phased out its agricultural engineering program from the 1980s – what impact has this had on
mechanization in SSA.
48. There is no question that farm power is an indispensable input for increasing agricultural
productivity and overall production. Studies by the Centre for Sustainable Agricultural
Mechanization [CSAM] of the Asia Pacific region do show clearly that farm power was and
remains a critical input in in increasing agricultural growth [FAO-RAP, 2015]. As Fan & Pardey,
1992 demonstrated in their seminal paper that farm power contributed 11.8% of growth in
agricultural output of P.R of China which occurred between 1965 to 1989 grater even the
contribution of irrigation which 3.3% [see Table2]. SSA needs to learn from such successful
development models if it is to break out of the cycle of low agricultural productivity and food
insecurity.
Table 2: Accounting for growth in agricultural output in China: 1965–1989 (Fan & Pardey, 1992)
Factor % Contribution to growth
Land -0.9
Irrigation 3.3
Labour 3.4
Farm power 11.8
Institutional change 13.8
Research 19.8
Fertilizer 21.3
Other factors 27.6
Total 100.0
Farm Power & Sustainability Issues
49. The issue of sustainability is critical to the success of Element 1 of the F-SAMA is important due
to the increasing global pressure for transformation of current agricultural production systems into
more sustainable ones and the initiatives undertaken in both the Asia Pacific and Africa regions to
develop frameworks for sustainable agricultural mechanization strategies over the past five
years [SAMS & F-SAMA respectively]. The SAMS and F-SAMA provide a longer-term vision of
how stakeholders see agricultural mechanization evolving in their respective regions whilst taking
cognizance of progress and developments in the sub sector over the past fifty years [FAO/CSAM,
2014 and AUC/FAO, 2018]. Given the high investment costs for farm power assets, it is important
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 18
that the consideration of sustainability goes beyond environmental sustainability issues to include
commercial and socio-economic sustainability.
50. The global experience on agricultural mechanization, shows that there are regions within countries
which are early adopters [by several decades in some cases] while other regions are late adopters
of mechanization technologies [e.g., Punjab in India with tractors and combine harvesters [Singh,
2013); Mbeya Region in Tanzania with power tillers (Mrema et al 2020); Central Tanzania with 4WT
(Shetto & Mkomwa, 2021)]and Northern Ghana {IFPRI, 2020]. Such early adopter regions are likely
to be able to support and commercially sustain agri-businesses specializing in the provision of
mechanization services within and/or across the national boundaries [Mrema et al 2020]. Given the
current low demand in the national markets, [for say tractors] in most countries in SSA, it may well
be prudent to plan for mechanization services and franchises at sub regional level. As noted in
FAO, 2008 of the 107,500 units of four-wheel tractors in use SSA [excluding South Africa] in 2000,
about 72% of them were concentrated in six countries with the remaining 28% spread in over 40
countries. Indeed, in some sub-regions [e.g., the SACU – Southern Africa Customs Union] the
franchises for agricultural machinery and implements are organized at sub-regional level to attain
economies of scale and scope and hence create more viable and sustainable enterprises. Sub-
regional markets may thus be the more sustainable option for agricultural mechanization supply
chains using the regional economic blocks as recommended in the SAMA framework [AUC/FAO,
2018].
51. Also, countries in SSA should consider provision of other services like, research and development;
testing of agricultural machinery and implements; setting of standards; as well as manufacturing
and trade activities at the sub-regional level to attain economies of scale and scope as recommended
in AUC/FAO, 2018. The experience of implementing such activities at the sub regional and regional
levels in Asia region should be invaluable to SSA countries. These issues should be given more
prominence as there are quite several national institutions in SSA which offer such services, and
which lack the critical mass of experts to be effective and are inadequately funded and equipped.
Highlights of lessons from Asia in operating such regional centres as APO; CSAM; testing and
standards bodies like ANTAM would be invaluable to SSA [FAO/UNIDO, 2010]. Also, there are
quite several pan-African institutions [such as the Inter-Africa Bureau of Animal Resources [AU-
IBAR] which has been quite successful in eradicating several livestock diseases which could offer
useful lessons on modalities of regional cooperation for solving development problems [FARA,
2014; AUC/FAO, 2018].
52. Over the past several decades the emphasis of governments, the international development
fraternity as well as the R & D systems has been directed at facilitating ownership by the small
farmer of farm power machinery and equipment. This has been done through designing,
manufacturing and promotion of equipment which can be sustainably owned by the farmer.
Further policy priority has been directed at provision of credit or other subsidies to enable the
farmer to procure such machinery and equipment which in rainfed agriculture he/she hardly fully
utilize throughout the year. The farmers are therefore forced to invest considerable resources on
machinery which they use of one month and store it for the remaining 11 months.
53. Perhaps more could be achieved if the research and development as well as technology transfer
agenda could be directed at creating entrepreneurs who are able to offer mechanization services
throughout the year and are able to sustainably finance their enterprises in addition to offering the
services at affordable and economic prices such as Mr. Kingangi in Kenya as explained in Box 3
Efficient Tractor Hire Services in Kenya. Such entrepreneurs are emerging in several parts of SSA –
Southern Africa: Eastern Africa and West Africa. Research on their business models and
facilitating their development and scaling up will do more to the mechanization efforts of SSA than
spending a lot of resources on designing prototypes which never move beyond the research
workshop or on testing new paradigms developed in far off places.
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 19
Box 3: Efficient Tractor Hire Service in Kenya
Mr. Gideon Gitungo Kingangi is a very talented provider of tractor hire services, and he is
also a 9-seater van tour operator. His home is located in Kabete near Nairobi in Kenya where
he owns a field of about 2 acres. He purchased a new 80 hp 4WD tractor with a disc plough
(3 x 660 mm) and a harrow (24 x 560 mm) using credit provided by a tractor distributor
in April 2009. The total cost was about 42 000 USD and a 30 percent down payment was
required. The remainder to be paid back in 2 years at an annual interest rate of 15 percent.
The hiring service starts in Kabete to plough and harrow for maize from November to
January the following year. The tractor then moves to Nyahururu, one of the granary areas in
Kenya for wheat and maize. He needs to transport
his tractor and equipment over 700 km by
hiring a lorry to Lamu for the maize crop. Then he
asks the operators to drive from Lamu to
Taveta near Mt. Kilimanjaro for beans and maize.
The harrow is pulled by the tractor and the
disc plough is mounted on it. The tractor works
continuously in Oloitokitok nearby Taveta
from June to August. The long season is ended in
Kabete in September for maintenance work.
The hire service is provided to farmers if they pay half of the service fee when signing
the contract. The remaining 50 percent is collected on completion of the job. He charges
2 000Ksh (25USD)/acre for ploughing and 1000Ksh/acre for harrowing. He estimates that the
capacity of the tractor is 10 acres/day for ploughing and 15 acres/day for disc harrowing. He
employs two qualified (over 5-years’ experience) operators and pays them 10 percent of the
hire service fee for their work. Additionally, he provides them with meals and accommodation during field
trips.
He believes that he is able to pay back the credit with interest in 2 years. The critical issue is an incentive
for operators to increase the volume of hiring work. There are no problems of spare parts supply and mainte-
nance service, he says. He is willing to purchase a lorry to transport his machines as well as transport hay as a
new business. Estimated gross annual income 2,000,000 Ksh (25 600USD). 1 USD = 78Ksh (May 2010) Sales: 20 000Ksh/day x 250 days/year = 5 000 000Ksh
Fuel cost: 80Ksh/litre x 8litre/acre x 10 acres x 250 = 1 600 000Ksh R&M cost: 500 000Ksh. Operator cost: 750 000Ksh. Other costs: 250 000Ksh
From: Kunihiro, T (2013): Agricultural Mechanization in Development: A Donor’s View. Chapter 12 of Kienzle, Ashburner and Sims (2013).
CONCLUSIONS
54. The SSA region had more tractors in use in 1960 than all the other developing regions of the world
as is evident from the preceding sections. By the end of the 20th century the hand tool technology,
with entire reliance on human muscle power, still dominated land preparation on 65% of the
cultivated. land in SSA with the figure being over 85% of the cultivated land in. Central Africa sub
region [Fig. 7]. It is obvious that the SSA region is the least mechanized in the world. The tractor
remains the most basic machinery for farming and it is unlikely there will be alternatives to it at
least in the coming several decades. SSA needs to find ways of ensuring that majority of its farmers
have access to mechanization services especially for tillage as other regions of the world have done.
The region needs to remain focused and avoid the paradigm shifts which have characterized
mechanization policies and strategies over the past seven decades.
55. An important lesson from the agricultural mechanization experience of other continents is the need
to invest in the training of human resources for mechanization. The training needs to be not only
in the technical and engineering fields but also in entrepreneurial skills. As noted by, among others,
Singh, 2001, the first undergraduate degree program in agricultural engineering was started in 1942
in Allahabad University in India cf. in United Kingdom where the first such programs started in
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 20
1965 in Silsoe College and Newcastle University [Gibb,1988]. In addition, India transformed her
educational system for the agricultural sector in the 1950s by establishing several state agricultural
universities which played a pivotal role in the green revolution of the 1960s [Lele, 2012]. The same
transformation occurred in the educational system of the other countries in the Asia region. It is
no wonder therefore that India, is now the largest manufacturer of tractors in the World exporting
the same to all continents [Singh,2013; FAO-RAP, 2014]. In SSA similar transformation of the
educational system started only in the 1970s and a lot still needs to be done, in this regard, for the
region to catch up.
56. During the 1960s and up to the 1990s the supply chain in SSA for tractors and other agricultural
machinery and implements was dominated by European and North America companies [Kurdle,
1975; Burch, 1987]. However, since the turn of the 21st century new players have emerged from the
newly industrialized countries who are now dominating the supply chains for agricultural
machinery and implements in SSA [Agyei-Holmes, 2014; Cabral, 2019]. Countries in SSA may need
to adjust their agricultural mechanization strategies to factor in this new situation. As noted in the
F-SAMA report this may be difficult to many countries in SSA as, on a national basis, the current
market for agricultural machinery and implements is quite small [AUC/FAO, 2018; Mrema et al
2019]. In this respect, to attain economies of scale and scope, a sub-regional approach may need to
be adopted. In key areas like in testing of agricultural machinery and implements a regional
approach may be necessary just as it has happened in Asia with the Asian Network for Testing of
Agricultural Machinery [ANTAM] [FAO-RAP, 2014 & 2015].
57. As has been noted in AUC/FARA, 2018 in a majority of SSA countries, the strongest in-country
capacity for R & D resides in the agricultural engineering departments in the schools of agriculture
and/or engineering of the universities. These departments are responsible for training human
resources in three critical disciplines: agricultural engineering and mechanization; irrigation and
water resources engineering; and post-harvest process engineering. The departments also are the
main units responsible for post-graduate training and research in these areas. Together with the
departments of agribusiness and farm management, they form the critical mass for effective action
within a country, if efficiently enabled. The centres for research in agricultural mechanization and
rural technologies, in countries where they exist, constitute the important country node for any
regional networking in agricultural mechanization. If there is going to be any regional mechanism
for agricultural mechanization, then its primary role should be to facilitate the coordination of
efforts of the national centres to work together in a structured regional network to achieve
economies of scale and scope. The research should focus both on the hardware [new equipment
etc.] as well as the software – the business and institutional mechanisms which can facilitate
optimal and commercial utilization of the hardware.
58. There has been quite some paradigm shift in the agricultural mechanization policies and strategies
of most of the countries in the SSA region. In several cases these shifts have been inspired by
writings and research by external experts. This is unlike in Asia where the capacity for analysis of
the process of and technologies involved in agricultural mechanization development was built in
the 1940s & 50 and hence, they have been able to engage and where necessary critically review and
challenge/engage the external experts with local perspectives on the proposed different paradigms.
With F-SAMA report and institutions such as ACT and AfricaMechanize Platform as well as
PASAE being available to coordinate and facilitate joint research work and discussions on
contemporary mechanization issues progress should be achieved during the coming two to three
decades. There are signs of success in some parts/districts/regions of SSA countries where primary
land preparation is being undertaken on up to 90% of cultivated land by tractors e.g., Northern
Ghana, Central Tanzania the North Rift Districts of Kenya among other areas. These success cases
should be analyzed and lessons drawn from the analysis used for scaling up in other areas. The
AfricaMechanize platform should play a catalytic role in scaling up and propagating such
successful models. ***************************
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 21
REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
AASR, (2016). Africa Agriculture Status Report, 2016: Progress towards agriculture transformation. [various
chapters]. AGRA. Nairobi. Kenya. ACT. 2015. African Conservation Tillage Network Annual Report 2014. ACT, Nairobi. ACT. 2017. Cropland area under conservation agriculture (CA) in Africa. Report of Executive Secretary ACT. Nairobi,
Kenya. Adams, N. 1988. A new plan for Africa: Development agencies should think big. New Scientist, 118(1619): 89. Adesina, A. 1991. Oxen cultivation in semi-arid West Africa: Profitability analysis in Mali. Agricultural Systems, 38(2):
131–147. Agyei-Holmes, A. (2014). Tilling the Soil in Tanzania: What do Emerging Economies Have to Offer? PhD Dissertation:
International Development Economics: The Open University, UK. August 2014. Alcober, D.I., Cornelius, J., Medland, J., Mrema, G.C., Prayag, S. & Sharrock, G.O. 1983. Agricultural development
and research priorities for a semi-arid area in Kenya. ICRA Bulletin No. 10. Wageningen, Netherlands,
International Centre for development-oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA). 112 pp. Allan, W. 1970. The development of African farming in Zambia. In A.H. Bunting, ed. Change in agriculture, pp. 393–
402. London, Gerald Duckworth & Co. 813 pp. Amanor, K.S. (2019): Mechanized Agriculture and Medium Scale Farmers in Northern Ghana: A Success of Market
Liberalism or a Product of History Agricultural Policy Research in Africa [APRA]: Paper no WP123. March
2019. Anderson, D.M. & Grove, R., eds. 1987. Conservation in Africa: People, policies and practice. Cambridge University
Press. 355 pp. Anderson, J.R. 1992. Difficulties in African agricultural systems enhancement? Ten hypotheses. Agricultural Systems, 38:
387–409. Anthony, K.R.M (1970) Agricultural Change among the Plateau of Tonga: Zambia in BuntingA.H. (1970) Change in
Agriculture pgs. 403-410. ASAE (1988). American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). (1988). History of Agricultural Mechanization. St.
Joseph Michigan. USA. Asian Productivity Organization (APO). 1996. Agricultural mechanization in Asia. Report of APO Seminar, 7–17
March 1995, Tokyo. AUC & FAO (2018) Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization: A Framework for Africa. Addis Ababa. 127pp. edited by
Kormawa, P; G. Mrema; N. Mhlanga; M.K. Fynn; J; Kienzle and J. Mpagalile. Lic. CC BY- NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Baker, C.J. & Saxton, K.E. 2006. The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of no-tillage farming. In Baker et al., No-tillage seeding in
conservation agriculture, pp. 1–10. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK, CABI and FAO. Baker, C.J., Saxton, K.E., Ritchie, W.R., Chamen, W.C.T., Reicosky, D.C., Ribeiro, M.F.S., Justice, S.E. & Hobbs,
P.R. 2006. No-tillage seeding in conservation agriculture. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK, CABI, and FAO. Balis, J.S. 1978. Introducing tractors under twenty-five horsepower to small farms. In Proceedings of Workshop on
Agricultural Technology for Developing Nations: Farm Mechanization Alternatives for 1–10 ha. Farms.
ASAE and the University of Illinois at Urbana. Baudron, F., B. Sims, S. Justice, D. Kahan, R. Rose, S. Mkomwa, P. Kaumbutho, J. Sariah, R. Nazare, G. Moges & B.
Gérard, B. 2015. Re-examining appropriate mechanization in Eastern and Southern Africa: two-wheel tractors,
conservation agriculture, and private sector involvement. Food Security 7(4): 1–16. Bell, M.A., D. Dawe & M.B. Douthwaite. (eds.) 1998. Increasing the impact of engineering in agricultural and rural
development, IRRI Discussion Paper No. 30. Manila, Philippines, IRRI. Bell, Richard. W et al., (2019) Conservation Agriculture for Rice-Based Intensive Cropping by Small-Holders in The Eastern
Gangetic Plains. In Agriculture (2019): (9)(5):1-17 Binswanger, H.P. 1978. The economics of tractors in South Asia: An analytical review. Hyderbad, India, ICRISAT, and
New York, Agricultural Development Council (ADC). Binswanger, H.P. 1986. Agricultural mechanization: A comparative historical perspective. World Bank Research
Observer, 1(1): 27–56. Bishop-Sambrook, C. 2005. Contribution of farm power to sustainable rural livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa.
Agricultural and Food Engineering Technical Report No. 2. Agricultural Support Systems Division. Rome.
Boserup, E. (1965) The Conditions for Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under
Population Pressure. Aldine Publishing Co New York 124pgs.
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 22
Boshoff, W.H. & Joy, J.L. 1966. Small tractors in small-scale African farming. In J.L. Joy, ed. Symposium on mechanical
cultivation in Uganda, pp. 108–114. Kampala, Makerere University Press. Boshoff, W.H. & Minto, S.L. 1974. Energy requirements and labour bottlenecks and their influence on the choice of
improved equipment. In Westley & Johnston, eds. [1974] Proc. of Workshop on Farming Equipment Innovation
for Agric. Development and Rural Industrialization, Institute for Dev. Studies, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
238 pp. Brader, L. 1994. IITA’s Response to Discussion Essay by Mrema & Odigboh (1993). NAMA Newsletter, 2(1&2):26–
29. Bunting, A.H., ed. 1970. Change in agriculture. Gerard Duckworth & Co. Ltd, London. 813 pp. Burch, P. (1980) Overseas aid and transfer of technology; A case study of Sri Lanka. Sussex University, England.
[unpublished PhD Dissertation]. Burch, P. (1987). Overseas Aid and Transfer of Technology: The Political Economy of Agricultural Mechanization in the
Third World. Harts, UK, Averbury Gower Publishing Co. Byerlee, D. and Husain, T. (1993). Agricultural Research strategies for Favored Marginal Areas: The Experience of Farming
Systems Research in Pakistan. Experimental Agriculture, 29:155-171. Carillon, R. & Le Moigne, M. 1975. The evolution of agricultural equipment in France: Lessons which may be learned from
it for developing countries. In FAO & OECD, Effects of farm mechanization on production and employment,
pp. 279–308. Rome. CGIAR (2013) IS&PC: The Nebraska Declaration on Conservation Agriculture. 2013. IS&PC Rome, Italy. Clarke, L. & Bishop-Sambrook, C. 2002. Farm power – Present and future availability in developing countries.
Presented at the ASAE Annual International Meeting/CIGR World Congress, Chicago, IL. Clayton, E.S. (1973), Mechanization and Employment in East African Agriculture in ILO (1973) Pgs. 19-44. Collier, P. & S. Deacon (2009), African Agriculture in 50 Years: Smallholders in A Rapidly Changing World. Expert
Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050. ESA Division; FAO, Rome. Italy. Collinson, M (Ed.) (2001) A History of Farming Systems Research FAO, Rome and CABI Publishing Oxford. Commonwealth Secretariat (COMSEC). 1990. Report of Expert Consultation on Agricultural Mechanization in
Commonwealth Africa. Zaria, Nigeria, 13–17 August 1990. London, FPRD, Commonwealth Secretariat. COMSEC. (1991).Agricultural Mechanization Policies and Strategies in Africa: Case Studies from Commonwealth
African Countries: Zaria Nigeria Report 13–17, 1990. COMSEC, London [ed. By G.C. Mrema] Corbeels, M et al 2014 Understanding the Impact and Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Africa: Multi-scale
Analysis. Agric. Ecosystems & Environment: 187:155-170. Darrity, W.A. (1980) The Boserup Theory of Agricultural Growth: A Model for Anthropological Economics in
J. of Development Economics 7(1980): 137-157 Den Hertog, G. & van Huis, J.A., eds. 1992. The role of draught animal technology in rural development. Proceedings of
International Seminar, 2–12 April 1990, Edinburgh, UK. Wageningen, PPUDOC Scientific Publishers. DeWilde, J.C. 1967. Experiences with agricultural development in tropical Africa. Vol. 1. The Synthesis. Baltimore, Johns
Hopkins University Press for IBRD.
Diao, X; H.Takeshima & X.Zhang (2020): An Evolving Paradigm of Agricultural Mechanization Development:
How much can Africa Learn from Asia? IFPRI, Washington D.C.
https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293809. Dikshit, A.K & Birthal, P.S. 2010. Environmental value of draught animals: Saving fossil-fuel and prevention of greenhouse
gas emission. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 23(2): 227–232. Dumont, R. 1966. False start in Africa. London, Andrew Deutsch. 328pp. Ehui, S. & Polson, R. (1992). A Review of The Economic and Ecological Constraints of Animal Draught Cultivation in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Soil and Tillage Research, 27:195–210. Eicher, C.K. & Baker, D. (1982), Research on Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Critical Survey. MSU
International Development Paper Number 1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State
University, USA. Eicher, C.K & J.M. Staatz (editors) (1998): International Agricultural Development. The John Hopkins University
Press. Baltimore, MD. 615 pgs. Elliott, J. 1989: Soil Erosion and Conservation in Zimbabwe: Political Economy and the Environment. PhD Thesis;
Loughborough University of Technology, UK. August 1989. Esmay, M.L. & Faidley, L.W. (1972), Agricultural Mechanization and Labor Utilization in Asia. Paper No. 72–530.
America Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph; Michigan, USA. Esmay, M.L. & Faidley, L.W. 1972. Agricultural mechanization and labor utilization in Asia. Paper No. 72–530. St.
Joseph, MI, ASAE.
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 23
Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency (EATA). 2015. Annual Report 2015. Addis Ababa. FACASI (2015). Farm Mechanization and Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification (FACASI)
CIMMYT/AusAID Program in Eastern & Southern Africa: Annual Reports (2014 & 2015) Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. FACASI. 2015. CIMMYT/AusAID Program in Eastern and Southern Africa: Annual Report 2015. Addis Ababa. FAO & UNIDO. 2009. Agricultural mechanization in Africa: Time for action. Rome, FAO and Vienna, UNIDO. 26 pp.
(also available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/k2584e/ k2584e.pdf). FAO & UNIDO. 2010. Agricultural mechanization in sub–Saharan Africa: Time for action. Proceedings of Workshop,
July 2009, Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania. Rome, FAO and Vienna, UNIDO. FAO (1966) Agricultural Development in Nigeria 1965-1980. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, Rome,
Italy. FAO, 2015 FAO. 1975. Effects of farm mechanization on production and employment. Report of the Expert Panel held in Rome, 4–7
February 1975. FAO and OECD. 406 pp. FAO. 1981. Agricultural mechanization in development: Guidelines for strategy formulation. FAO Agricultural
Services Bulletin No. 45. Rome. 77 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-be821e.pdf). FAO. 2008. Agricultural mechanization in sub–Saharan Africa: Time for a new look. AGSF Occasional Paper No. 22. Rural
Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division. Rome, FAO. 54 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-
i0219e.pdf). FAO. 2011. Save and grow – A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production. Rome.
(Also available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/ i2215e/i2215e.pdf). FAO. 2013a. Mechanization for rural development: A review of patterns and progress from around the world. ICM Vol. 20.
AGP Division. Rome, FAO. 336 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3259e/i3259e.pdf). FAO. 2013b. Agricultural mechanization in sub-Saharan Africa guidelines for preparing a strategy. Integrated Crop
Management Vol. 22. Plant Production and Protection Division, FAO. Rome. E-ISBN 978-92-5-107763-4.
Rome, FAO. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3349e.pdf). FAO. 2016. Agricultural mechanization, a key for sub-Saharan African smallholder. Integrated Crop Management (ICM
23). Rome. (also available at http:// www.fao.org/3/a-i6044e.pdf). FAO. 2018. Sustainable agricultural mechanization for agricultural transformation in sub-Saharan Africa. Paper presented
at the First International Conference of the Pan-African Society for Agricultural Engineering (PASAE),
Nairobi, Kenya, 25–28 March 2018. FAO. RAP (2015). A regional strategy for sustainable agricultural mechanization: Sustainable mechanization across agri-
food chains in Asia and the Pacific Region. FAO-RAP Publication No. 2014/24. 74 pp. (also available at
http://www.fao.org/3/a- i4270e.pdf). FAO-RAP. 2014. Report of the High-Level Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization
Strategy (SAMA) for the Asia and the Pacific Region convened by FAO and UNESCAP/CSAM, Bangkok, 26–27
June 2014. Bangkok, FAO-RAP. 84 pp. FARA. 2014. Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa (S3A): “Connecting Science” to transform agriculture in Africa.
Accra, Ghana, FARA. Farrington, J., Abeyratne, F. & Gill, G.J., eds. 1982. Farm power and employment in Asia: Performance and prospects.
Proceedings of Regional Seminar, 25–29 October 1982, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Bangkok, ADC. Fluck, R.C. & Baird, C.D. 1979. Agricultural energetics. Westport, CT, AVI Publishing Co. Friedrich, T. & Kassam, A. 2012. No-till farming and the environment: Do no-till systems require more chemicals?
Outlooks on Pest Management. (available at DOI:10.1564/23aug02) Friedrich, T. (2013). Agricultural mechanization and the environment. In FAO (2013). Mechanization for rural
development: A review of patterns and progress from around the world. Int. Crop Man, Vol. 20, pp. 181–
204. Rome, FAO. Gabre-Madhin, E.Z. & Haggblade, S. 2004. Successes in African agriculture: Results of an expert survey. World
Development, 32(5): 745–766. Gemmill, G. & Eicher, C.K. 1973. A framework for research on the economics of farm mechanization in developing countries.
MSU African Rural Employment Paper, No. 6. East Lansing, MI, Michigan State University. Ghana, Government of (1962) First Ghana Seven Year Development Plan1963-69. Ministry of Economic Planning, Accra.
Ghana. Gibb, A.C. 1988. Agricultural engineering perspective – Celebration of Golden Jubilee 1938–88. Published by Institution
of Agricultural Engineers. West End Road, Silsoe, Bedford, UK.
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 24
Giles, G.W. (1975). The Reorientation of Agricultural Mechanization for the Developing Countries: Policies and Attitudes
for Action Programs. In FAO/OECD (1975) Effects of Farm Mechanization on Production and Employment
pgs. 71-90. FAO Rome Italy. Giles, G.W. 1966. Agricultural power and equipment. In The world food problems, Vol. III. A report of the President’s
Advisory Committee, pp. 175–216. Washington, DC. Gohlich. 1984. The development of tractors and other agricultural vehicles. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 29: 3–
16. Academic Press. Gordon, J. 1970. State farms in Ghana: The political deformation of agricultural development. In Bunting, ed. Change in
agriculture pp. 577–584. London, Gerald Duckworth & Co. 813 pp. Hall, M. 1968. Mechanization planning in East Africa. In G.H. Helleiner, ed. Agricultural planning in East Africa.
Nairobi, East Africa Publishing House. Holtkamp, R. 1988. Catalogue: Tractors 10–35 hp. Special Publication No. 211. Eschborn, Germany, GTZ. 138 pp. Holtkamp, R.G., (1989) “Small 4-Wheel Tractors for the Tropics and Sub-Tropics”. Margraf Scientific Publishers,
Weikersheim (FRG). 242 Pgs. Holtkamp, R.G., (1991). Small Four-Wheel Tractors for the Tropics and Subtropics: Their Role in Agricultural and
Industrial Development. In Mrema, G.C. (ed) (1991): P. 217–249. Hunt, D.R. (1983). Farm Power and Machinery Management. Iowa State University press, Ames, Iowa. IBRD. (1987): Agricultural Mechanization: Issues and Options A World Bank Study, Washington D.C. prepared by
Hans Binswanger & Graham Donovan with assistance of Raymond Fabre. ISSN0258-2120. 85 pgs. IBRD (1989) Sub Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Development: A long Term Perspective World Bank,
Washington DC. 300pgs. IFPRI (2016). Agricultural mechanization and agricultural transformation. Edited by Diao, X., J. Silver, and H.
Takeshima IFPRI Discussion Paper 1527. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. IFPRI. 2020. Small survey of power tiller owners in Kpong irrigation scheme, Ghana. [CD]. IFPRI, Washington, DC. ILO. (1973). Mechanization and Employment in Agriculture: Case Studies from Four Continents. Geneva, Switzerland.
International Labour Organization. IBRD (1960. The economic development of Tanganyika. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(IBRD). 1960 Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press. IRRI. (1983). Consequences of Small-Farm Mechanization. IRRI & ADC Publication 184 Pgs. Manila, Philippines. Jacks, G.V. (1942) Prospects for Soil Conservation. The East African Agricultural Journal: Vol. 8(2): pgs. 71-73. October 1942. Kates, R.W., McKay, J. & Berry, L. 1969. Twelve new settlements in Tanzania: A comparative study of success. Dar es
Salaam, Bureau of Resource Assessment and Land Use Planning, University College. 62 pp. Kaul, R.N. 1991. Agricultural mechanization in Africa: Overview of main issues. In G.C. Mrema, ed (1991) Agricultural
mechanization policies and strategies in Africa: Case studies from Commonwealth African countries, pp.
29–42. Kayombo, B. & G.C. Mrema (1998). Soil Conservation and Sustainability of Agricultural Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa
in Lal, R (editor) (1998): Soil Quality and Agricultural Sustainability. Ann Arbor Press; Chelsea, MI 48118;
USA. Pgs. pgs. 177-197 Chapter 12. Khan, A.U. 1972. Agricultural mechanization: The tropical farmer’s dilemma. World Crops, 24(4): 208–213. Kienzle, J; J.E. Ashburner & B.G. Sims (editors) (2013). Mechanization for Rural Development: A review of patterns and
progress from around the world. AGP Division - ICM - Vol.20 - 2013; FAO Rome, Italy. 336 pgs. Kinsey, B.H. & I. Ahmed (1984). Farm Equipment Innovations in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa Gower
Publishing Company Hampshire, UK, 345 pgs. Kjoerby, F. 1983. Problems and contradictions in the development of ox cultivation in Tanzania. Research Report No. 66.
Uppsala, Sweden, Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. 164 pp. Kline, C.K., Green, D., Donahue, R.L. & Stout, B.A. (1969). Agricultural Mechanization in Equatorial Africa. Research
Report Number 6. Michigan State University. Kolawole, M.I. 1972. An economic study of tractor contracting operations in Western Nigeria. Agricultural Economics,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. (PhD dissertation) Kolawole, M.I. (1974). Economic Aspects of Private Tractor Operations in the Savanna Zone of Western Nigeria. Journal
of Agricultural Engineering Research, 19(4): 401–10. Kormawa, P. 2015. Sending the hoe to the museum: Promoting sustainable agricultural mechanization in Africa. Africa
Policy Review, 2018 [online. http://africapolicyreview.com/sending-the-hoe-to-the-museum-promoting-
sustainable-agricultural-mechanization-in-africa/ Kosura-Oluoch, W. 1983. An economic analysis of small farm mechanization in Western Province, Kenya. Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY. (PhD thesis)
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 25
Kunihiro, T (2013). Agricultural Mechanization in Development; A Donors view. Chapter 12 of Kienzle, J; J.E. Ashburner
& B.G. Sims (editors) (2013). 229-252pgs FAO-Rome. Kurdle, R.T. 1975. Agricultural tractors: A world industry study. Cambridge, MA, Ballinger Publishing Co. Lal, R. (editor) (1998). Soil Quality and Agricultural Sustainability. Ann Arbor Press; Chelsea, MI 48118; USA. 378 Pgs. Lantin, R. 2013. Information exchange and networking: The RNAM experience. In FAO 2013. Mechanization for rural
development: A review of patterns and progress from around the world. ICM Vol. 20, Ch. 16. Rome, FAO. Lele, U. 1976. Tractors and ox plows in Africa. In Development Digest, 14(1): Jan.1976 Washington, DC, USAID. Lele, U. 2012. East Africa agriculture after 50 years of independence. Keynote presentation to ASARECA/Kilimo Trust
Workshop, December 2012, Kampala, Uganda. Kilimo Trust and EAC. Lord, R.F. 1963. Economic aspects of mechanized farming at Nachingwea, Tanganyika. London, HMSO. Lweshya, E. M. (2015). Utilization of Tractors in Mbarali Distriict, Tanzania. MSc Dissertation; Dept. Engineering
Sciences and Technology, SUA; Morogoro Tanzania Maher, C. (1950). Soil Conservation in Kenya Colony: Part 1 Factors Affecting Erosion, Soil Characteristics and Methods of
Conservation; Part II: Conservation Practice: Organization and Legislation: Present Position and Outlook. In the
Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture: Vol. XVIII (1950): No. 71:137-149; No. 72: 233-248. Maina, J.W. & J.D. MacArthur (1970) Land Settlement in Kenya in Bunting, A.(1970) Change in Agriculture. Pg 423-
436. Makanjuola, G.A., Abimbola, T.O. & Anazodo, U.G.N. 1991. Agricultural mechanization policies and strategies in
Nigeria. In G.C. Mrema, ed. Agricultural mechanization policies and strategies in Africa, pp. 99–120. Makhijani, A. & Poole, A.C. 1975. Energy and agriculture in the Third World. USA, Ballinger Publishing Co. 168 pp Maravanyika, S. 2013: Soil Conservation and White Agrarian environment in Colonial Zimbabwe. C. 1908-1980. PhD
Thesis, University of Pretoria, Dept of History and Heritage Studies, September 2013. Mayne, J.E., (1954). Progress in the Mechanization of Farming in the Colonial Territories. Tropical Agriculture, 31 (3) 178–187. Mayne, J.E. (1955). Progress in the Mechanization of Farming in the Colonial Territories. Tropical Agriculture, 32 (3) 95–
9. Mayne, J.E. 1956. Progress in the Mechanization of Farming in the Colonial Territories. Tropical Agriculture, 33(4): 272–
277. Mazoyer, M. & L. Roidart. (2006). A History of World Agriculture: From Neolithic Age to the Current Crisis. Earthscan.
London. 510pgs. Mellor, J (1998) Agriculture on the Road to Industrialization; in Eicher & Staatz (eds) (1998) International Agricultural
Development pgs. 136-154. Misra, S.M. (1991). Formulation and Implementation of Agricultural Mechanization Policies in India. In Mrema. (ed)
(1991). Agricultural mechanization policies and strategies in Africa pg. 189–216. Moens, A & A.H.J, Siepman (editors) (1984); Development of Agricultural Machinery Industry in Developing Countries.
Proc, of International Conference Jan 1984. PUDOC, Wageningen 400pgs. Morris, J. (1986). Estimation of Tractor Repair and Maintenance Costs. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research.
Vol. 41, pg., 191 – 200. Morrison, K. D. (2006). Typological Schemes and Agricultural Change: Beyond Boserup in Pre Colonial South India in
Current Anthropology: 37(4):583-608. Aug 2006. Mpanduji, S.M. (2000). Repair Cost of Tractors and Comparison of Mechanization Strategies Under Tanzanian Conditions.
PhD Dissertation, Technical University of Munich, Germany. Mrema, G.C.; D.G Kahan, & A. Agyei-Holmes (2020) Agricultural Mechanization in Tanzania in Diao et al (2020)
<. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293809 > IFPRI pgs.457-496. Mrema, G.C. (Editor) (1991). Agricultural Mechanization Policies and Strategies in Africa: Case Studies from
Commonwealth African Countries. London, UK. Commonwealth Secretariat Publications. 313pgs. Mrema, G.C. 2016. A report of a scoping study on information on impact of agricultural mechanization interventions in
Tanzania under ASDP1 – 2005/15: Designing elements of an impact study. Dar es Salaam, RESAPAC/PAPAC –
ILRI and Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. 86 pp. Mrema, G.C.; J. Kienzle & J. Mpagalile (2018) Current status and future prospects of agricultural mechanization in Sub-
Saharan Africa [SSA] in AMA – Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America vol.49 no.2
(2018):13-30. Muchiri G; C.J. Mbara & C.O. Mwanda (1991), Agricultural Mechanization Policies and Strategies in Kenya in
Mrema, G.C (editor) (1991) Agricultural Mechanization Policies and Strategies in Africa pg. 77-98. Nag, P.K. & Pradhan, C.K. 1992. Ergonomics in the hoeing operation. International Journal Industrial Ergonomics, (Special
issue: Agricultural ergonomics) 10: 341–350. Nwuba, E.I.U. & Kaul, R.N. 1986. The effect of working posture on the Nigerian hoe farmer. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research, 33: 179–185. London, Academic Press.
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 26
Okali C; G.C. Mrema & S.Sefe Dedeh(1996) Centre Commissioned External Review Report to Project No. 9
Improving Post Harvest Systems: Report to the Chairman Board of Trustees, International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA) 46 pgs, Ibadan, Nigeria. Oluwasami, H.A. 1975. Effects of farm mechanization on production and employment in Nigeria. In FAO/OECD (1975)
Effects of farm mechanization on production and employment, pp. 51–70. Rome, FAO and OECD. Panin, A. 1994. Empirical evidence of mechanization effects on smallholder crop production systems in Botswana.
Agricultural Systems, 47: 199–210. Passmore, R. & Durnin, J.V.G.A. 1955. Human energy expenditure. Physiology Reviews, 35: 801–840. Pingali, P.L., Bigot, Y. & Binswanger, H.P. (1987). Agricultural Mechanization and the Evolution of Farming in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Johns Hopkins University Press for the World Bank, Baltimore, MD. 216pgs. Promsberger, W.J. (1976). A History of Progress in Mechanization. Paper No. 76-1046.American Society of Agric.
Engineers. St. Josephs. Chapter 24. Reardon, 1998 African Agriculture: Productivity and Sustainability Issues in Eicher & Staatz (eds)(1998)
International Agricultural Development pgs. 444-457 Rijk, A.G. 1983. Role of agricultural mechanization in Asia. ADB Staff Study Paper, October. Manila, Agricultural
Services Department, Asian Development Bank.October 1983. 61 pgs. Rijk, A.G. 1989. Agricultural mechanization policy and strategy: The case of Thailand. Wageningen Agricultural
University. (PhD dissertation) Rowland, J.W. 1974. The conservation ideal: Being the SARCUSS record for the period 1970–80. SARCUSS, Private Bag
X116, Pretoria. 368 pp. Rowland, J.W., (1994), “The Conservation Ideal: The Third Decade: Being the SARCUSS Record for the Period 1970-1980.
SARCUSS, Private Bag X116, Pretoria, S. Africa (1994), 387 Pgs. Ruthernberg, H. (1980) Farming Systems in the Tropics Oxford. Clarendon Press Ruthernberg, H. 1964. Agricultural development in Tanganyika. Berlin-Spinger-Verlag.
Ruttan, V.W. (1998) Constraints to the Design of Sustainable Systems of Agricultural Production in Eicher &
Staatz (eds) (1998) International Agricultural Development pgs431-443. Sarma, J.S. (1982), Agricultural Policy in India: Growth with Equity. Ottawa, Canada. IDRC. Science 333 (6042) (July
29):616-20. Seager, P.J. & Fieldson, R.S., (1984). Public Tractor Hire and Equipment Hire Schemes in Developing Countries. Research
Unit Report, No. ARU 30. World Bank, Washington D.C. Shetto, R. & S. Mkomwa (2021). Agricultural Machinery Hire Services Provision in Central Tanzania
Districts of Kiteto, Kongwa and Mvomero. African Conservation Tillage Network (ACT). Nairobi
Kenya [In press] Shetto, R. (2019). Tractor Hire Services in Kongwa, Kiteto and Mvomero Districts, A Report submitted to African
Conservation Tillage [ACT] Network, Nairobi. December 2019. Simalenga, T.E. & Have, H., (1992). Estimation of Soil Tillage Workdays in Semi-Arid areas. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research. Vol. 51, 1992. Simalenga, T.E., (1989). Simulation Model to Predict Field Workdays and Its Use in Machinery Selection Under Tropical
Conditions. Copenhagen, Denmark: Unpublished PhD Thesis, Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Royal
Veterinary and Agricultural University. Singh, G. (1998), Production and Use of Tractors in India. In M.A. Bell, D. Dawe & M.B. Douthwaite, (eds) (1998). pgs
49–59 [IRRI]. Singh, G. (2001). Relationship between Mechanization and Agricultural Productivity in Various Parts of India. In
Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa And Latin America, 32(2), Spring 2001. Singh, G., (2013). Agricultural Mechanization in India. In: Mechanization for Rural Development: A Review of
Patterns and Progress from Around the World- J. Kienzle, J.E. Ashburner, and B.G. Sims, Eds. Integrated
Crop Management Vol. 20-2013. FAO. ISSN 1020-4555. Stanhill, G., (1984). Agricultural Labour: From Energy Source to Sink Chapter 6 of Stanhill, (ed) (1984): Energy and
Agriculture; Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1984. Stanhill. G. (1992). Agricultural Labour: From energy source to sink. In R.C. Fluck, ed. Energy in farm production.
Energy in world agriculture. Vol. 6. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science. Starkey, P. (1988). Animal-Drawn Wheeled Tool Carriers: Perfected Yet Rejected. Braunschweig, Germany, Vieweg,
Deutscheszentrum Fur Entwicklungs technologien. 1988. Starkey, P. (Ed). (1998). Integrating Mechanization into Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture. Technical Centre for
Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), Wageningen.
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 27
Starkey, P. 1986. Appropriate technology for Africa: An evaluation with suggestions for future initiatives. Consultancy
Report. Ottawa, Canada, IDRC. 34 pp. Starkey, P. 1988b. Animal traction directory: Africa. German Organization for Technical Cooperation (GTZ),
Eschborn. Stevenson, J.R.; Seraj, R. & Cassman, K.G. (2014) Response to Comments on ‘Evaluating Conservation Agriculture for
Small-scale Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment.
196(2014)112-113. Stout, B.A. 1979. Energy for world agriculture. Agricultural Series Vol. 7. Rome, FAO. Swynnerton, R.J.M. 1954. A plan for intensification of African agriculture in Kenya. Nairobi, Government Printer. TAMS (2005) Tanzania Agricultural Mechanization Strategy Ministry of Agri. & Food Security Dar es Salaam Tandon, S.K. 2007. Conservation agriculture policy – Perspectives and future scope. International Conference on
Advances in Environment Research (ICAER), India, and APCAEM. (Essay) TSAE (1972): Tanzania Society of Agricultural Engineers (TSAE). 1972. Proceedings of Annual Conference, Morogoro.
Morogoro, United Republic of Tanzania. Taylor, D.B. 1992. Resource allocation and productivity of cereal state farms in Ethiopia. Agric. Economics, 8(3): 187–197. Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M. & Gichuki, F. 1994. More people, less erosion. Environmental recovery in Kenya. New York,
John Wiley & Sons Publishers. TSAE. (1973, 1974). Proceedings of Annual Conferences of 1973 & 1974 held in Morogoro; Moshi and Mwanza
Respectively. TSAE, Morogoro, Tanzania. Twum, A. & Gyarteng, O.K. 1991. Agricultural mechanization in Ghana: An overview in Mrema,G.C. Editor 1991
Agricultural mechanization policies and strategies in Africa. Pgs.59-76. White, W.A, (2001). The Unsung Hero: The Farm Tractor’s Contribution to the 20th Century USA Economic Growth in J.
Economic History 61/02/493-496. White, W.A. (2000). The Unsung Hero: The Farm Tractor’s Contribution to the 20th Century USA Economic Growth. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Economic History, Ohio State University, Columbus 127 Pgs. Willcocks, T.J. & Twomlow, S.J. 1992. A review of tillage methods and soil and water conservation in Southern Africa.
Soil and Tillage Research, 27: 73–94. Wood, A. 1950. The groundnut affair. UK, Bodley Head. Yeboah, F.K. & Jayne, T.S. 2016. Africa’s evolving employment structure. International Development Working Paper.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
***************************************
AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 28
ANNEX
FIGURE 8: ‘R’-RUTHERNBERG NUMBER
.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Nigeria
Tanzania
Ghana
Ethiopia
Kenya
SSA excluding Republic of South Africa
South Asia
Southeast Asia