Frédéric Baudron, Raymond Nazare, Betina Edziwa, David Kahan

Harare, 17th March 2015

Two-wheel tractors, conservation

agriculture, and private sector involvement

Goal: (1) to improve access to mechanization, (2) reduce labour drudgery, and (3) minimize biomasstrade-offs in ESA, through accelerateddelivery and adoption of 2WT-based technologies by smallholders

Target countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe

Duration: March 2013 to February2017

Budget: 3.9 M Aus$ fromACIAR/AIFSRC, 0.9 M Aus$ fromCIMMYT, 1.1 M Aus$ from partners

FACASI (Farm Mechanization & Conservation

Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification)

(www.ndzl.org)

Solar energy fixed

biologically in plant

biomass

Plant biomass

converted into

animal biomass

Increasing labour shortages (rural-urban migration, HIV/AIDS, ageing population)

Declining number of draughtanimals (biomass shortage, drought, diseases)

High labour drudgery

Gender implications

Unattractive to the youth

Farm power: a major limiting factor to productivity in SSA?

Farm power: the forgotten

resource in SSA?

CA (No-Till) mainly adopted in South America, North America, Australia, & New Zealand (Derpsch and Friedrich, 2009)

One of the major incentive: reduction in fuel and machinery costs (Kassam et al., 2009)

Major incentive in the less mechanized systems in developing countries: early planting (arising from the reduced number of operations required to prepare the land)(Haggblade and Tembo, 2003)

Primary purpose of CA: establishing a crop with as little energy (= power × time) as possible

CA: first and foremost an

energy-saving technology

CA & Small Mech: Synergies

Soil inversion is the most power intensive operation.

Its suppression makes the use of lower powered, more

affordable and easier to maintain tractors possible.

CA with a Two-Wheel Tractor:

options commercially available

Strip tillage Direct-seeding: 2 rows Direct-seeding: 1 row

Dramatic reduction in the time

needed to establish a crop…

0

20

40

60

80

100

Conv land

prep +

planting

Conv

planting

Danyang

2BFG

VMP National

ZT

Fitarelli 2R Fitarelli 1R Morrisson

seeder

Tim

e (

ho

ur

ha

-1)

(Data from Hawassa, Ethiopia)

Low fuel consumption

5 to 10 L ha-1

Yield advantage for small grain

Myth 1: Small mech is not appropriate

for rainfed agriculture

Not powerful enough for ploughing… … but perfect for direct seeding

Myth 2: animal traction is cheaper than

small mech for SSF in SSA Time needed to establish a crop divided by 7

22

4 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

Anim tracconv ag

Anim tracCA

2WT CA

Tim

e (h

ou

rs p

er

ha)

7.33

1.33

0.25012345678

Anim tracconv ag

Anim tracCA

2WT CA

Lab

ou

rd

eman

d

(man

day

/ha)

Labour productivity 5 to 30 times higher

Same entry point cost

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Anim tracconv ag

Anim tracCA

2WT CA

Co

st (

US$

) 2WT no till pllanter

Anim trac no till planter

Anim tract conv planter

Anim trac plough

2WT 12HP

4 oxen

2530 2600 2800

2

1

6 hours per day 12 hours per day

(Baudron et al., submitted)

The same energy is needed for 8 hours work of a pair of oxen weighing 300 kg each, ...and for the production of 10 L of milk (60 MJ)

69

28

3

No retention

Less than 1 tone per ha

1 tone per ha or more

18

57

25

(Baudron et al., 2013)

Myth 3: Large mech is more efficient

than small mech

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

4WT (80HP) conv ag

4WT (80HP) CA

2WT CA

Fuel

co

nsu

mp

tio

n (

L p

er

ha)

Planting

Discing

Ploughing

63

15

6

Fuel consumption 2.5 to 10 times lower

05000

10000150002000025000300003500040000

4WTconv ag

4WT CA 2WT CA

Co

st (

US$

)

2WT no till pllanter

4WT 3 row no till planter

4WT 3 row planter

4WT disc harrow

4WT 2 disc plough

2WT 12HP

4WT (60 HP)

35590

21900

2800

Entry point cost 8 to 13 times lower

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4WT conv ag 4WT CA 2WT CA

Tim

e (h

ou

rs p

er h

a)

5.65

0.85

2

Time needed to establish a crop divided by (0.4 to) 3

Myth 4: Small engines are totally new

to SSF in SSA countries

Supporting infrastructure (e.g. access

to finance, repair services, replacement parts,

fuel and lubricants) exists

1 grinding mills for 200 HH in Dombshawa 1 water pumps for 20 HH in Dombshawa

Large number of two- and three-wheelers

Gender aspects

It is more about impact of mechanization on gender relations and dynamics than it is about the machines being used by women

Do we really need ‘women friendly’ machines?

Gender dynamics

Access to services (and extension, credit, etc)

Control over resources

Intra-household decision making

Gender division of labour

Values and assumptions (e.g. women expected to work hard and long hours)

The paradox: high labour intensity,

but low demand articulation

Women supply most of the labour (e.g. in Western Kenya)

Women’s labour burden does not translate into articulation of demand for mechanization

Women have little control over financial resources (especially in female-headed households)

Women have little decision-making power (especially in male-headed households)

Women’s labour is not valued, and women’s high labour intensity is not recognized

19%

32%23%

27% Men

Women

Children

Hired

What tasks to mechanize in order

to reduce women’s labour burden?

Direct positive effects

Mechanization of transport and post-harvest operations

Indirect positive effects

Men’s tasks that affect women’s tasks (e.g. timeliness of planting affecting weeding intensity)

Men’s tasks that require women to prepare and transport food to men working in the field

Substitution of mechanization to animal draught power, reducing the labour need for livestock feeding and manure collection

Small mech = Appropriate mech

in most of SSA

Minimum negative social impact

Pro-poor (low entry point cost)

Equitable access (cheap service)

No need for land consolidation (2/3 of African farms smaller than 2 ha; Alteri, 2009)

No displacement of labour (mechanization of the most power-intensive operations only)

Minimimum negative environmental impacts

Climate smart (high fuel efficiency)

Minimum soil degradation (lower footprint, minimum tillage as a must in rainfed conditions)

Biodiversity (maintenance of heterogeneity at plot – e.g. trees – and landscape levels)

Small mech = Appropriate mech

in most of SSA

Commercializing small mech to

resource-constrained farmers

Private rural service providers

Only few farmers will be able to purchase machines individually

Not profitable for farmers to own machines unless they provide services

Multi-purpose uses (to maximize mechanization use rates)

Linking input BM to output BM (cash flow)

Bundling of services and products (to reduce the cost of mechanization services)

Possible need of a broker (weak markets, vulnerable farmers)

Multipurpose use of 2WTs

High demand for mechanization, even at low labour wage for:

Transport

Power-intensive operations that require little human control (e.g. shelling)

Power-intensive operations that are unprofitable when unmechanized (e.g. water pumping)

Entry points?

Several models…

1. Group owner/ operator model (KEN, TAN)

2. Group owner/ individual operator model (TAN)

3. Individual owner/ operator model – local market, part time SP (farmer to farmer) (ETH, KEN)

4. Individual owner/ operator model – wider market, full time SP (ETH)

5. Contract farming – corporate owner/ operator model (ZIM)

6. Dealer-led vertically integrated model (KEN, ZIM)

7. Dealer-led collaborative model (ETH)

8. Manufacturer-led vertically integrated model (TAN)

9. Manufacturer-led collaborative model (TAN)

Steps

1. Identifying tasks to be mechanized (low labor productivity and/or high labor drudgery, likely demand)

2. Identifying/manufacturing suitable machines

3. Creating demand (incentives for commercial actors)

4. Building capacity and skills for mechanization and business (machines owned by farmers at an early stage, entrepreneurs specialized in hiring services later)

5. Linking to finance

Thank you!