Does Conservation Agriculture Pay? Experiences from the smallholder farming sector of Zimbabwe

Killian Mutiro, B. Mvumi, E. KeoghGRM International

Protracted Relief Program (PRP)Zimbabwe

SUSTAINABLE IMPACT

PRP Multi-donor programme, DFID as main donor

Goal Extreme poverty in Zimbabwe reduced.PurposeDestitution prevented and livelihoods of the poorest and most vulnerable protected and promoted

ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT

Livelihood Interventions

Social Protection Interventions

WASH Other

Agricultural inputs Food Transfers Water points installation or rehabilitation

Community Based Approaches

CA farmer support Cash Transfers Latrines Capacity building of community based groupsHH gardens HBC Support PHHE training

Community gardens

Small livestock

ISALs

REDUCING VULNERABILITY

Targeted Households: Very Poor Vulnerable Households

• Very poor with labour• Net exporters of labour (in exchange for

grain, seed, draft power)• No draft power• Cant afford mineral fertilizers and seed• Late planting• Poor yields – less than 500kg/ha• Food insecure

REDUCING VULNERABILITY

Targeted Household Profile

HH sizeLand area cultivated

Crops cultivated Livestock Holding

Very Poor 61ha-1.5ha

0.1ha gardensMaize, Sorghum, Cowpeas, Groundnuts, Sweet Potato

2-6 chickens

Poor 71.5ha-2ha

0.2ha gardens

Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas, Cotton Groundnuts, Sweet

Potato

5-7 chickens, 1-3 goats 1 cow

Middle 72.25ha-2.75ha 0.2ha garden

Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas, Groundnuts, Sweet Potato,

Cotton

8 chickens, 2-3 goats, 1-3 cattle, 1 ox, 0-2 donkeys

Better-off 48ha-12ha

0.6ha gardens

Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas, Groundnuts, Sweet Potato,

Cotton

15+ chickens, 2+ Oxen, 4-6 cattle, 7+ goats, 2-4 donkeys

Wealth Groups Characteristics

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

% of population

FLEXIBILITY

Strategy: CA Training and Input SupportActivity Achievement

HHAgricultural inputs

244,800

CA farmer support

113,658

CA Package(1) Permanent planting stations called potholes or basins established using hand hoes(2) Assistance with seed and fertilizer inputs (3) On-going training(4) Mechanization (credit for CA equipment)

POVERTY REDUCTION

Key Questions

1. Have we been able to address food insecurity among the very poor households supported by PRP?

2. Is CA profitable for the very poor?3. What is the Return to donor investment in CA?

POVERTY REDUCTION

Methodology

1. A modified Cost Benefit Analysis

- Donor and household investment

- Market prices ( did not use economic prices)

2. Gross Margin Analysis- Family labour3. Modelling of scenarios4. LIME monitoring

COMMUNITY DRIVEN

Scenarios for Modeling

Cropping Scenario Description

Normal farmer practice (no access to draft power)

Conventional ploughing, planted mid to late December and a minimum of two weedings

Optimum farmer practice (with access to draft power)

Conventional ploughing soon after effective rainfall and two weedings

Optimum farmer practice and microdosing

Conventional ploughing with 28kg of N per ha

CA basins without fertilizer CA basins with two weeding and no fertilizer

CA basins including fertilizer CA basins with two weeding and 28kg N per ha

INNOVATION

Results

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Yiel

d K

g/ha

Farmer Practice - 410 kg Optimum Farmer - 708 kg Basins No Fert -741 kg

Optimum Farmer+ 28 kg N - 1257 kg Basins + 28 kg N - 1369 kg

Source: ICRISAT

RESILIENCE

Results

•73% yield increase by just planting in time(conventional)

•81% yield increase by planting in time using basins

•5% increase in yield by switching to basins (Opt farmer to basins, no fertilizer)

•234% yield increase by adopting basins and fertilizer (28 kg N)

•9% yield benefit for adopting basins from optimum farmer with fertilizer

SUSTAINABLE IMPACT

Results

Key Indicator Farmer Practice

Inexperienced CA Farmer (1-3 years)

Experienced CA Farmer

Return to labour (US cents per labour hour)

9.8 10.4 15.7

Cost of producing a tonne of maize

239 146 126

Kgs of grain per labour hour

0.79 1.11 1.37

Cost Benefit Ratio at 12% discount rate

2.6

ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT

Food Sources

Baseline Monitoring Baseline Monitoring Baseline MonitoringPoor Middle Better Off

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

GiftsFood aidBarterPurchasePayment in kindLivestock productsCrops

SOURCE: PRP LIME 2011

ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT

Conclusion

1. 80% of PRP supported CA farmers are food secure2. Lots of life changing stories on CA3. Good return on Donor Investment in CA

However;4. Only 40% of the cultivated area is under CA. - What could be limiting expansion?- What is the most limiting input? - Can mechanization be the answer? Affordability of

equipment by the very poor without credit support? (average annual cash incomes for the very poor are under USD500).

PRO POOR APPROACHES

Conclusions

2. Some principles not being adopted.- To what extend are we compromising yield benefits by not

adopting all the principles?- Trade offs with other competing objectives – eg winter

weeding and gardening?3. Affordability and availability of agricultural inputs. - If agricultural input assistance or subsidy is withdrawn can

the very poor afford? Will they continue with CA? - Capacity of agro-delears and input suppliers?

Additional information is available on our website

www.prpzim.info

SOCIAL PROTECTION

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!!