! ! ! ! ! !

KILIMO UHIFADHI* (*Swahili: Conservation Agriculture)

SMALLHOLDER ADOPTION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN KARATU DISTRICT, TANZANIA

MSc Thesis by Anna Katharina Voss

MSc Thesis by Anna Katharina Voss

! ! ! ! !

KILIMO UHIFADHI* (*Swahili: Conservation Agriculture)

SMALLHOLDER ADOPTION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN KARATU DISTRICT, TANZANIA ! ! ! ! "#$%&'!%(&$)$!*#+,!-&.'#,#%)/+!#+,!-&0&1/23&+%!4'/52!$563)%%&,!)+!2#'%)#1!7517)13&+%!/7!%(&!,&.'&&!/7! "#$%&'!/7!89)&+9&!)+!:+%&'+#%)/+#1!*#+,!#+,!;#%&'!"#+#.&3&+%!#%!;#.&+)+.&+!<+)0&'$)%=>!%(&! ?&%(&'1#+,$! !

Study program: MSc International Land and Water Management (MIL)

Student registration number: 820614-909-010

LDD 80336

Supervisor: Dr. ir. Jan de Graaff

Examinator: Prof. dr. Coen Ritsema

Date: September 2013

Wageningen University Land Degradation and Development Group

African Conservation Tillage Network (ACT)

Cover photo (A.K. Voss, August 2011): CA plot of maize intercropped with Dolichos lablab. Kilimatembo village, Karatu, Tanzania

2 !"#$%!&$'

Conservation Agriculture (CA) could offer multiple benefits to smallholder farmers by increasing agricultural productivity and conserving soil and water resources, but has not been widely adopted in Africa. This research aimed at assessing the scope of CA adoption in Tanzania and reflects the results of a survey in 50 households in Karatu district held at the end of the growing season 2011. Many interviewed farmers highlighted the beneficial impact of CA practices on soil fertility and crop yields. Conventional and CA farmers were compared at field and farm level using the Olympe model, and CA proved to achieve noticeably higher production and gross margins for maize and legume intercropping. Shown on the example of a dry year like 2011, CA appears to bear a potential for improving rural livelihoods and reversing land degradation in semi-arid Africa. Nonetheless, farmers mentioned the lack of access to specialized CA equipment and free-grazing animals as hindering factors to fully adopt the CA principles of minimum soil disturbance and permanent soil cover. Furthermore, there is no clear answer to the question whether CA can save labour. CA adoption in Karatu is a flexible, non-linear process and depends on multiple factors at farm scale and beyond. Its impact on farm economics was especially promising for smaller farms with less crop diversification. Further research is needed to understand how to tackle the constraints that resource-poor farmers face when adopting Conservation Agriculture, kilimo uhifadhi, on their fields.

Keywords: Conservation Agriculture, minimum tillage, soil cover, adoption, economic impact assessment' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

3 !&()*+,-./-0-)$#'

When I signed up for participating in the CA2AFRICA project, I never imagined the long way before completing my thesis project. First and foremost I would like to offer my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Dr. ir. Jan de Graaff for his guidance, support, kindness and patience beyond words.

Not only will I never forget this enriching research and learning experience in Tanzania, but thanks to Jan and project coordinator Dr. Marc Corbeels from CIRAD I also got the opportunity to participate in another CA2AFRICA fieldwork opportunity in Burkina Faso, in close cooperation with Dr. Johannes Schuler (ZALF).

In East Africa, Saidi Mkomwa and Hamisi Mzoba from ACT Nairobi made this project possible and I was warmly welcomed in Tanzania by Wilfred Mariki and Marietha Owenya from SARI in Arusha. None of the survey and interviews would have been possible without my translator, driver and rafiki Wayda Peter who never got tired of assisting me, the mzungu student, in the not always easy to arrange meetings with the farmers in the beautiful and dusty villages around Karatu.

I am also grateful to each and every one of the farmers who offered me their trust, knowledge and information – this paperwork is nothing compared to their relentless day-to-day activities in the field where they make Conservation Agriculture happen.

My special thanks goes to Mzee Vitalis Basso from Rhotia village for his openness to share his experiences with me. I am fond of having received the support of Karatu’s district agricultural officers, especially Mama Baida and Benjamin, and my helpful translators from Kilimatembo and Giekrum Arusha villages. Deo Ngotio from ACT Dar-es-Salaam has been extraordinary helpful in all kind of aspects during my stay in Tanzania and afterwards as my special source of information whenever I was in need of further information about agriculture in Karatu. I would also like to thank Eric Penot for his distance-assistance with the Olympe model.

My time in Karatu would not have been the same without Wiebke and the many shared moments on our veranda. And I maybe would never have started this African journey without my rafiki and travel- companion Yeray, que lindos recuerdos de todos los momentos compartidos.

And last but not least, a huge thank you to all my friends and family, every one of you who kept on encouraging me throughout the long and stony thesis process. Asante sana!

4 $1234'56'7589489:'

Tables and figures ...... 6! Abbreviations and units ...... 7! ;! <89=5>?79@58'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA'B! 1.1! Conservation Agriculture (CA) and its adoption in Africa ...... 8! 1.2! The CA2AFRICA project ...... 9! 1.3! Problem statement ...... 10! 1.4! Objectives of this study ...... 10! 1.5! Research questions ...... 11! C! %4:41=7D'75894E9'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA';;! 2.1! How to assess CA adoption and impact? ...... 11! 2.2! Study area ...... 13! 2.2.1! Location of Karatu dictrict, Tanzania ...... 13! 2.2.2! Agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions ...... 13! 2.2.3! CA promotion and stakeholders in Karatu ...... 15! F! 049D5>535GH'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA';I! 3.1! Farm data collection: Household survey ...... 16! 3.2! Farm data analysis: Olympe model ...... 16! 3.2.1! Model description ...... 16! 3.2.2! Data classification and analysis ...... 17! 3.3! Soil erosion evaluation ...... 18! J! %4:?39:'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA';B! 4.1! From principles to practice: Conservation Agriculture in Karatu ...... 18! 4.1.1! “Pole pole”, or CA adoption – little by little ...... 18! 4.1.2! Complete adoption of the three CA principles? ...... 19! 4.1.3! Further aspects of CA practice in Karatu ...... 20! 4.1.4! Farmers’ experiences of CA benefits and constraints ...... 22! 4.1.5! Defining “the” CA farmer in Karatu ...... 27! 4.2! Field-level comparison of CA and non-CA cultivation ...... 29! 4.2.1! Crop inputs ...... 29! 4.2.2! Crop productivity and profitability ...... 32! 4.3! Farm-level comparison of CA and conventional practices ...... 35! 4.3.1! Farm typology ...... 35! 4.3.2! Farm-scale perspective on CA profitability ...... 36! 4.3.3! Farm and household economics ...... 40! 4.4! Impact of CA on soil erosion ...... 42! K! .@:7?::@58'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA'JF! 5.1! Reflection on the methodology ...... 43! 5.2! Is CA more resource-efficient, productive and profitable for small-scale farmers in Karatu? ...... 44! 5.3! Can CA reverse land degradation and erosion? ...... 47! 5.4! Prospects of CA adoption in Karatu ...... 48! I! &5873?:@58:'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA'KL! %464=4874:'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA'KC!

!MM-).<&-#' '

5 $1234:'18>'6@G?=4:'

'

Box 1. Specific criteria for CA as defined by FAO (2012) ...... 8! Box 2. Interview with Mrs Baida from DALDO (Karatu, 20.9.2011) ...... 21! Box 3. Interview with Mr Mzee Vitalis Basso (Rhotia village, October 2011) ...... 28!

Figure 1. CA2AFRICA case study countries ...... 10! Figure 2. Conceptual framework CA2AFRICA ...... 10! Figure 3. Hypothetical pathways towards adopting CA ...... 12! Figure 4. Geographical location of Karatu district in Tanzania (Ringo et al., 2007) ...... 13! Figure 5. Physical setting of Karatu district (Ringo et al., 2007) ...... 13! Figure 6. Average annual precipitation and rainfall days in Karatu district for 2001-2010 ...... 14! Figure 7. Major environmental constraints in the study area ...... 14! Figure 9. Overview of economic indicators used in the Olympe analysis ...... 17! Figure 10. Benefits of CA as perceived by farmers in Karatu ...... 22! Figure 11. Constraints to CA adoption as perceived by farmers in Karatu ...... 25! Figure 12. Seed quantities per crop and cultivation method ...... 30! Figure 13. Labour input for maize intercropped with legumes according to cultivation method ...... 31! Figure 14. Maize (intercropped with legumes) harvest by cultivation method ...... 33! Figure 15. Economic comparison for maize intercropped with legumes by cultivation method ...... 33! Figure 16. Balance of crop production costs and benefits according to farm typology ...... 38! Figure 17. Profitability comparison by crops, cultivation method and farm typology ...... 38! Figure 18. Impact of CA on farms’ crop gross margin ...... 39! Figure 19. Erosion features in Karatu district: badlands and gully formation ...... 42! Figure 20. Pre-Requisites for adoption of Conservation Agriculture ...... 48! Figure 21. Supporting (+) and hindering (-) factors to CA adoption ...... 49!

Table 1. Farm resources of CA and non-CA farmers in Karatu ...... 19! Table 2. Sample size and area by practised maize-legume association ...... 29! Table 3. Yields of maize and intercropped legumes by cultivation method ...... 32! Table 4. Costs and profitability for maize intercropped with legumes by cultivation method ...... 34! Table 5. Farm strategies of crop diversification ...... 35! Table 6. Farm typology according to cultivation method and crop diversification ...... 36! Table 7. Overview of farm economics by cultivation method and farm type ...... 37!

' ' ' '

6 !22=4N@19@58:'18>'?8@9:'

ACED Assessment of Current Erosion Damage ACT African Conservation Tillage Network CA Conservation Agriculture CA2AFRICA Conservation Agriculture in AFRICA: Analysing and FoReseeing its Impact – Comprehending its Adoption CA-SARD Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development CIRAD Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement CPAR Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief DALDO District Agricultural and Livestock Development Office FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FFS Farmer Field School GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (now GIZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit) IAMM Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier INRA Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique KDA Karatu Development Association SARI Selian Agricultural Research Institute TFSC Tanzania Farmers Services Centre TSh Tanzanian Shilling

!=41' 1 acre = 0.405 ha 1 ha = 2.47 acres

&?==487H;' 1 ! = 2,269.18 TSh 1,000 TSh = 0.44 !

!!"#$!%&!'()*(+,(-!./*01!23..4!5556789(&%-(:6;%+<+8$;<08$*%-8;#7=-#*($6;%+>! 7 ; <89=5>?79@58'

;A; &58:4=N19@58'!G=@7?39?=4'O&!P'18>'@9:'1>5Q9@58'@8'!6=@71'

An “agrarian revolution”, the agricultural “paradigm for the 21st century”, a strategic pathway to ensure sufficient food production for a growing world population – this is how Conservation Agriculture (CA) is currently being promoted by part of the scientific community and international agricultural institutions and research centres (Fowler & Rockstrom, 2001; Huggins & Reganold, 2008; Kassam et al., 2010).

The term CA includes a broad variety of farming systems in agro-ecological zones that range from arctic latitudes over the tropics to about 50º S (Derpsch et al., 2010). Their common characterization as CA is based on the simultaneous application of three principles as defined by FAO (2001a; 2012): minimal soil disturbance through reduced or no tillage, permanent soil cover through cover crops or mulch, and implementation of crop diversification and rotations (Box 1).

"5E';A'#Q47@6@7'7=@94=@1'65='&!'1:'>46@84>'2H'R!*'OCL;CP'

Advocates of CA claim that it can both increase crop production and reduce production costs while at the same time providing multiple ecosystem benefits such as reversing soil fertility decline and erosion, improving water retention capacity of the soils and enhance carbon sequestration, amongst others. By achieving this, CA is considered a most promising way of sustainable land management contributing to food security (Hobbs, 2007; Derpsch et al., 2010; FAO, 2001a; FAO 2010).

The benefits of CA, as promoted by agricultural researchers, institutions and extension offices, are multiple: By minimising the mechanical disturbance of the soil, soil structure and health are said to be improved, leading to a higher water and nutrient status that will have beneficial effects on crop quality and yields. Maintaining a constant soil cover throughout the year protects the soil from crusting and erosion. And by diversifying crop cultivation, e.g. intercropping cereals with nitrogen-fixing leguminous species and crop rotations, the nutrient cycle will be kept intact and the risk of pests and diseases is lowered. But not only is CA claimed to enhance soil fertility and productivity, it is also presented as a resource, cost and labour input-saving practice (Bishop-Sambrook et al., 2004; Hobbs, 2007; Derpsch et al., 2010). FAO promotes CA as part of their sustainable crop production intensification (SCPI) paradigm, synergising the concepts of “save and grow”. In the context of climate change adaptation and mitigation, CA is said to have a beneficial impact on soil carbon sequestration and greenhouse emissions (FAO 2009 & 2011).

8 The conservation tillage movement emerged in the US after the 1930’s “Dust Bowl” had raised farmers’ and scientists’ attention to the problem of soil erosion as a consequence of intensive tillage practices (Hobbs, 2007; Huggins & Reganold, 2008). Since then, it has spread across the world and reached about 125 million ha of no-tilled land by 2011, principally in South and North America (Friedrich et al, 2012). Yet CA as defined by FAO (2001a; 2010) should not be confused with the concepts of conservation or zero-tillage (Hobbs, 2007; Gowing & Palmer, 2008). It goes beyond the mere banning of the plough from the field and promotes an integrated approach of “ecosystem farming” by simultaneously applying the three principles (FAO, 2011).

Africa is the continent where CA is least present, with only 0.3% of its total area under no-tillage (Derpsch et al., 2010). IFAD’s Rural Poverty Report 2011 states that sub-Saharan Africa has the highest proportion of undernourished persons (32% of its total population), and that this poverty is eminently rural. Thus, smallholder agriculture is a key factor in improving African livelihoods. How come the continent that concentrates the big majority of Least Developed Countries (UN-OHRLLS, 2010) has not widely embraced the practices of CA?

CA does appear to be a promising approach with multiple benefits, especially in areas like Karatu district in Tanzania where diseases like AIDS and malaria are substantially affecting labour availability of the population (Bishop-Sambrook et al., 2004). Nonetheless the opinions and evaluations of CA, especially in regard to its suitability for sub-Saharan Africa, are not uniformly positive amongst the international scientific community. In this context, a debate emerged when Giller et al. (2009) published an article scrutinizing the widespread promotion of CA as a “panacea” for sustainable farming. An animated discussion in the international scientific community arose and can be followed on the Internet (Hobbs, 2009).

Giller et al. (2009) criticize in their article that CA has become an unquestioned doctrine for many agricultural development projects in Africa without having assessed the various factors that might explain the so far minimal adoption rate of CA in this region of the world. The authors identify several trade-offs like crop residues being used as fodder, the lack of access to inputs, the effects of CA practices on the gendered labour division and the critical transition phase towards CA including possible short-term yield reductions. Many of these arguments are shared by proponents of CA (Fowler & Rockstrom, 2001; Hobbs, 2007; Lal, 2007; Friedrich & Kassam, 2009; FAO, 2010) and also apply to Karatu district (Bishop-Sambrook et al., 2004; Ringo et al., 2007). However, the mentioned difficulties and trade-offs are often considered to be a challenge for CA adoption is sub-Saharan Africa rather than impeding factors. Yet Giller et al. (2009) go a step further and conclude that CA is not an appropriate universal approach for small African farmers. The authors emphasize that the “socio-ecological niche” of CA in Africa still has to be defined to acknowledge under which specific conditions and for what type of farming systems CA could indeed be one of the alternatives for sustainable agriculture.

;AC $D4'&!C!R%<&!'Q=5S479"

This research is embedded in the EU-funded CA2AFRICA project (2010-2012) which aims at analysing and modelling the potential and constraints of CA in different geographic and agro-ecological regions in Africa. CA2AFRICA is a collaborative project between 10 international research institutions, coordinated by CIRAD. Against the background of the abovementioned issues raised by Giller et al. (2009), the project has been set up to critically assess the viability of CA in Africa. It is focussed on smallholder farmers and seeks to understand the multiple, local context-specific conditions that favour or discourage African farmers to adopt CA techniques. CA2AFRICA is analysing the impact and adoption of CA by evaluating a

9 series of completed or on-going case study projects in several African countries (Figure 1). In East Africa, the Nairobi-based African Tillage Network (ACT) is the regional project coordinator (CA2AFRICA, 2011; Corbeels et al., 2011).

R@G?=4';A'&!C!R%<&!'71:4':9?>H'75?89=@4:'''''''' R@G?=4'CA'&5874Q9?13'6=1T4U5=V'&!C!R%<&!' O&!C!R%<&!W'CL;CP''''''''''' ' O&5=2443:'#$"%&'W'CL;;P''

CA2AFRICA is primarily following a modelling approach to represent the functioning of CA farms in the different case study locations. The multi-scalar analysis takes place at field, farm and regional level. CA performance on the plot, its impact on farm management and the wider context at district level are studied through the use of specific models at each scale, without ignoring the interactions between them (Figure 2) (CA2AFRICA, 2011; Corbeels et al., 2011).

;AF M=5234T':9194T489'

There is a lack of understanding under which kind of agro-ecological and socioeconomic conditions Conservation Agriculture can be a viable approach to improve agricultural productivity and livelihoods for resource-poor smallholder farmers in Africa. In Karatu district, Tanzania, CA has been promoted by different stakeholders in Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and is claimed to successfully have tackled low productivity and land degradation. Yet few studies have been undertaken to analyse the adoption and adaptation of CA amongst farmers and the impact of CA on the field and farm level. Further research is needed to understand farmers’ experiences regarding the benefits and constraints of CA and to assess the impact of CA on crop productivity and profitability and erosion control.

;AJ *2S479@N4:'56'9D@:':9?>H'

This research aims at contributing to assess the reality of CA adoption and the socioeconomic and land related on-farm impacts of CA in Karatu district. Understanding the advantages and difficulties farmers are facing when applying the CA principles as proposed by the CA-SARD project will help to adjust and adapt the promotion of CA in Karatu and on a wider scale.

10

Embedded in the broader context of the CA2AFRICA project, the research results in Karatu district will contribute to a comparative synthesis pointing out the technical, socioeconomic and policy conditions required as a basis for successful CA adoption in different African settings. This knowledge is of importance for future development interventions in agricultural projects or programs by regional, national or international institutions.

Within the multi-scalar CA2AFRICA framework, this research is focused on analysing CA benefits and constraints at field and farm scale. The main objective is to identify the impact CA has on the overall farm management when compared to conventional farming.

;AK %4:41=7D'X?4:9@58:"

How are smallholder farmers in Karatu district practicing Conservation Agriculture? o What are the local adoption strategies of the three conceptual CA principles?

What do farmers in Karatu perceive as benefits and constraints of CA practices? o Which effects of CA do farmers consider most beneficial for their fields and farm? o What hindering factors and difficulties have farmers experienced when adopting CA practices on their land?

Does the adoption of CA practices in Karatu district contribute to soil conservation and erosion control? o Do farmers in Karatu perceive erosion as a major problem? o Is there a visible difference in erosion damage on the CA and the non-CA plots?

How does the adoption of CA practices impact the productivity and profitability of land and labour as compared to non-CA farming? o What is the impact of CA on the field level? o Which farm types of CA adopters can be identified?

C %4:41=7D'75894E9'

CA; Y5U'95'1::4::'&!'1>5Q9@58'18>'@TQ179Z'

CA postulates that the three principles of minimum or no-tillage, permanent soil cover and crop rotation are implemented as an integrated approach within which a broad variety of practices is possible. But in reality, farmers may not take up all of the three principles and chose to adapt the new technology to their specific conditions and possibilities (Gowing & Palmer, 2008). Giller et al. (2009) criticize the lack of research on the specific impacts of the separate CA practices, while Gowing and Palmer (2008) raise the question whether partial adoption will bring the promised benefits in terms of soil health, erosion and productivity.

11 The concept of adoption can be described as a subsequent process of diffusion of an innovative technology amongst a population over time (Rogers, 2003). De Graaff et al. (2008) distinguish three stages in the adoption process of soil and water conservation measures by farmers: going from the “acceptance”, the “actual adoption” to the “continued use” phase, the latter being an expression of farmers’ intrinsic motivation to maintain new land management strategies even after external incentives, e.g. through a project, have stopped.

Pannell et al. (2006) point out that high relative advantage and high trialability will enhance farmers’ adoption of CA. Successful adoption depends on farmers’ perception about the advantages that CA will offer them, and on their possibility to try out these new practices and confirm the expected benefits before proceeding to the actual adoption process. Then, depending on the results of CA when applied to the real field conditions, several adoptive pathways are possible that may lead to either partial or complete adoption or even abandonment of CA practices (Figure 3; Shetto & Owenya, 2007).

R@G?=4'FA'YHQ59D49@713'Q19DU1H:'95U1=>:'1>5Q9@8G'&!' O#D4995'['*U48H1W'CLL\P'

The impact of CA practices can be defined by their effects on different scales, from the actual plot or field over the farm as a whole up to wider geographical levels. CA has both biophysical and socioeconomic impacts. As state Pannell et al. (2006) the adoption of conservation practices is a multifaceted issue that requires to be studied across disciplinary boundaries. Observed physical impacts like a change in soil structure, nutrient availability, yields or erosion and run-off due to the implementation of CA, can be measured or modelled at field level. Yet together with a change in labour and input patterns as well as residue management they will affect the farm performance as a system and should therefore be studied from the perspective of a whole-farm approach (FAO, 2001b).

Onsite and offsite effects of CA might also differ and are worth being considered, e.g. when they concern upstream erosion and downstream sedimentation as in the Lakes Manyara and Eyasi in Karatu district (Ringo et al., 2007), even though these impacts might be harder to estimate and are beyond the scope of the CA2AFRICA project. Other studies have assessed the effect of CA on people’s livelihoods with special attention to vulnerable rural households (Bishop-Sambrook et al., 2004; Stewart, 2011).

12 CAC #9?>H'1=41'

CACA; ,5719@58'56'(1=19?'>@79=@79W'$18]18@1'

Karatu district lies within Arusha region in Northern Tanzania, East Africa, at latitudes 3º10’ to 4º00’ S and longitude 34º47’ E (Figure 4) (Ringo et al., 2007).

R@G?=4'JA'/45G=1QD@713'35719@58'56'(1=19?'>@:9=@79'@8'$18]18@1'O%@8G5'#$"%&'W'CLL\P'

CACAC !G=5^47535G@713'18>':57@5^47585T@7'758>@9@58:'

The district of Karatu is situated along the Eastern escarpment of the Great Rift Valley (Figure 5) and covers an area of 3300 m2. It’s topography ranges from 1000 to 1900 m above sea level, wherein three different agro-ecological zones can be distinguished: lowlands, including Lake Eyasi and Lake Mayara, midlands and uplands.

R@G?=4'KA'MDH:@713':499@8G'56'(1=19?'>@:9=@79'O%@8G5'#$"%&'W'CLL\P'

13 The average annual rainfall in Karatu varies from 400 up to 1000 mm following the altitude gradient, creating semi-arid and sub-humid areas. Precipitation, including high intensity rainfall, presents a great inter and intra-annual variability and is generally concentrated in two rainy seasons per year. However, the bimodal patterns are becoming more erratic and the region is experiencing an overall decrease of rainfall. Figure 6 shows the approximate decrease of 100 mm in mean annual precipitation, as well as the decrease in days of rainfall per year over the decade 2001 to 2010 (Owenya et al., 2012). Mean annual temperatures also depend on the altitude and range from 15ºC to 24ºC.

R@G?=4'IA'!N4=1G4'188?13'Q=47@Q@919@58'18>'=1@86133'>1H:'@8'(1=19?'>@:9=@79'65='CLL;^CL;L' U@9D'9=48>'3@84:'O*U48H1'#$"%&'W'CL;CP'

Soils vary depending on the topography and include fertile volcanic clay soils to more sandy soils in the lowlands. Low soil suitability and erratic rainfall are the main environmental constraints in the study area (Figure 7).

R@G?=4'\A'01S5='48N@=58T48913'758:9=1@89:'@8'9D4':9?>H'1=41'C'

According to the latest national census Karatu district’s population increased from 178,434 inhabitants in 2002 to 230,166 in 2012 (National Bureau of Statistics, 2013). The Iraq tribe is the main ethnic group in the area. 90% of the population in Karatu depends on livestock and rain-fed agricultural production. The cropping system is mainly maize-based and many farmers perform intercropping with species such as

2!"#$%&!'(()*++,,,-./0-012+3045(16)10.789:+;/):+50//+95+<7:0=>?@$AB/)CD>EFGH! ! 14 pigeon pea. Beans and wheat are also cultivated, as is coffee in some larger plantations in the highlands. In the lowlands, crop production includes onions and paddy rice.

Erosion and declining soil fertility are the consequences of unsustainable ways of farming the land, partly due to increased population pressure. Agricultural labour availability is affected by the relatively high HIV prevalence rate of an estimated 17-20% (2002) in Karatu, above national average. Subsistence agriculture and livestock keeping remain the principal economic activities in the district, while tourism is an increasing income source with nearby protected areas like Serengeti, Ngorongoro and Lake Manyara attracting many international tourists throughout the year (Bishop-Sambrook et al., 2004; Ringo et al., 2007).

CACAF &!'Q=5T59@58'18>':91V4D53>4=:'@8'(1=19?'

In Tanzania, an estimated 6000 ha account for CA (Derpsch et al., 2010). In Karatu district, introduction of CA-related practices began at the end of the 1990’s with the promotion of subsoiling/ripping practices and cover crops such as pigeon pea to break existing hardpans. Stakeholders involved in this process include SARI, Karatu Development Association (KDA), Tanzania Farmers Services Centre (TFSC), assisted by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ, now GIZ), Germany (Ringo et al., 2007).

This research concentrates on the German-funded CA-SARD (Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development) project in Karatu district. CA-SARD was implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the African Tillage Network (ACT) in selected districts in Kenya and Tanzania in order to promote smallholder adoption of CA practices. In Tanzania, the Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives were further crucial stakeholders.

The first implementation of the CA-SARD project took place from 2004 to 2006, followed by an extended second phase from 2007 to 2010. The project’s methodological approach consisted of installing participatory Farmer Field Schools (FFS) where groups of around 25-30 motivated farmers could learn, experiment themselves and adapt the proposed CA techniques to their local conditions (FAO & ACT, 2009).

The CA-SARD project introduced leguminous plants like mucuna and lablab as cover crops in Karatu. Not many farmers have adopted suggested crop rotations such as maize-wheat-finger millet. In general, the experiences with CA in Karatu district seem to have shown its potential for increasing yields, reducing labour and strengthening farmers’ socioeconomic conditions.

Nonetheless further challenges remain as farmers face difficulties such as competing uses of crop residues for soil coverage and fodder, incomplete agronomical knowledge regarding CA and lack of appropriate machinery, equipment and seeds. Lack of access to and increasing prices of fertilizers and herbicides are another drawback, while some FFS groups have managed to adapt their cropping system and are cultivating without chemical inputs (Ringo et al., 2007; Owenya et al., 2011).

15 F 049D5>535GH'

FA; R1=T'>191'7533479@58_'Y5?:4D53>':?=N4H"

For this research, an empirical survey was conducted among 50 farm households in Karatu district. The survey form (Appendix A) principally focussed on retrieving quantitative data of the farms’ inputs and outcomes as well as general expenses, but also included a series of open and closed qualitative questions regarding the farmers’ opinions, their motivations, expectations and experiences with Conservation Agriculture. In order to evaluate the impact of CA on the field and farm level it was decided to undertake a comparison of CA and non-CA adopting farms. Of the 50 farmers, 50% were selected on the criteria of practising CA on their own land after having participated in the FFS project, whereas the other 50% belonged to the group of non-CA, conventional farmers. The sampling was made following recommendations from Mr Wilfred Mariki and Mrs Marieta Owenya from SARI based in Arusha.

The following five villages were chosen as representative locations of CA implementation in the uplands of Karatu district: Ayalabe, Tloma, Rhotia, Kilimatembo and Giekrum-Arusha. In all these villages, the CA- SARD project had actively promoted the formation of FFS. In Karatu, the District Agricultural and Livestock Development Office (DALDO) assisted together with the corresponding village extension officers in selecting and contacting both the CA and non-CA farmers to be interviewed. The survey took place individually at the farmers’ homestead so that next to the interview process the fields and plots could be observed in situ. In a few exemptions, where visiting the farm could not be arranged logistically, the meeting with the farmers took place at the village extension office. Since many of the farmers were not proficient in English, a translator was present during the interviews.

After comparing the interview data, one CA farmer from Rhotia village was excluded from the sample because due to his large farm size of 30 acres he clearly stood out against the rest of the farms and declassified as smallholder, the target group of this study. Nonetheless, his case is an interesting example that CA can also be an option for larger farms. The farmer in question had extensive wheat fields but was experimentally practicing CA on one acre with maize and legumes.

FAC R1=T'>191'1813H:@:_'*3HTQ4'T5>43''

FACA; 05>43'>4:7=@Q9@58''

The socioeconomic impact of CA has been assessed by using the Olympe model developed by INRA, CIRAD and IAMM in France. Olympe (Figure 8) is an explanatory model based on the productive system of a single farm or a group of classified farms, and can be used to run risk R@G?=4'BA'&5874Q9?13':49^?Q'56'9D4'*3HTQ4'T5>43' analysis and scenario simulations over sets of O.4D4?N43:W'CLLBP' 10 years in order to help decision-making with regard to management options. Input data such as fallow fields, as well as tools and fixed includes information about cropping and assets and labour according to the working livestock system, farm activities, land reserves calendar (Deheuvels, 2008; Penot, 2010).

16 FACAC .191'731::@6@719@58'18>'1813H:@:'

The quantitative data from the field survey in the villages around Karatu was entered in Olympe farm-by- farm and plot-by-plot. After creating a dataset for each single farm, the 49 farmers were classified as per the typology presented in 4.3.1 and grouped accordingly. Out of the different groups of farmers, Olympe then allows to create a new dataset for each type of farm that is further on treated like a single farm representing the average characteristics in terms of area, crops grown, input costs, labour, productivity, household economics, etc. Figure 9 gives an overview of the main economic indicators used at field and farm scale for the data analysis presented in the following chapters.

R@G?=4'`A'*N4=N@4U'56'47585T@7'@8>@7195=:'?:4>'@8'9D4'*3HTQ4'1813H:@:'' O1>1Q94>'6=5T'M4859'#$"%&'W'CL;LP' FAF #5@3'4=5:@58'4N13?19@58"

Herweg (1996) proposes in his Assessment of Current Erosion Damage (ACED) method a fieldwork approach to identify the soil loss occurring in a determined area, its causes and possible soil and water conservation measures to prevent further damage. The ACED method considers water erosion damage caused by single events on the slope level. It is a qualitative and semi-quantitative method aiming to understand the area-specific spatial erosion pattern, and depending on the observer’s experience accuracy might vary from approximately 15-30%.

The author suggests assessing the erosion damage at the beginning of the rainy season when the soil is least protected by a vegetation cover. The used indicators include soil loss (m3 or t), soil loss per field (m3/ha or t/ha), soil loss per area of actual damage (m3/ha or t/ha with the area of actual damage being calculated by multiplying the number of rills by their average width and length), area of actual damage as percentage of the field (expressed in %) and a description of the exact location of the erosion features. Although this simplified method does not take into consideration neither inter-rill erosion nor deposition along the same field, it can give a relative idea of the eroded soil volume and propose conservation measures.

Due to the lack of rainfall events during the time of this survey and logistical difficulties, it was not possible to evaluate the impact of CA on erosion and its potential to reverse land degradation on a representative number of plots during the fieldwork period. Yet some observations and a visual assessment of plots with different cultivation strategies along one selected erosion-topo-sequence took place and are further contrasted with farmers’ observations and perceptions regarding erosion and soil conservation under CA as compared to conventional practices.

J %4:?39:'

JA; R=5T'Q=@87@Q34:'95'Q=179@74_'&58:4=N19@58'!G=@7?39?=4'@8'(1=19?'

JA;A; ()*&#"+*&#,-W"5='&!'1>5Q9@58'a'3@9934'2H'3@9934''

What has been the impact of promoting CA through the CA-SARD project in Karatu since 2004? How do farmers practice CA when they bring this new technology from the shared FFS plots to their own land?

As a general observation from this research, and without taking into account the individual starting times, it can be stated that the majority of interviewed farmers were currently in a state of partial adoption of CA; partial in terms of trying out CA on portions of their land. Of the 24 interviewed CA farmers, only six were practicing CA on the whole of their farmland, and three of them were actually very small-scale farmers with only a single plot of one acre each. As for the remaining farmers, they had some area of intercropped maize and legumes under CA cultivation while continuing with their conventional farming methods on the major part of their land.

?!'5#0878@!A'7%57B1!$7%57BC! 18 $1234';A'R1=T'=4:5?=74:'56'&!'18>'858^&!'61=T4=:'@8'(1=19?''

CA farms non-CA farms (n=24) (n=25)

HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS 6.4 5.8

LIVESTOCK UNITS 3.7 2.9

CROP LAND (acre) 3.6 3.2

CA maize + legumes 1.4 - non-CA maize + legumes 1.6 2.8 Other crops 0.6 0.4

Table 1 gives a first overview on the main farm and household characteristics of the farmers analysed in this study. In general terms, the average CA farm was slightly bigger in terms of household members, livestock units and farm size than the non-CA counterpart. The overall average value for the interviewed CA farmers was 1.4 acres cultivated under CA, for a mean farm size of 3.6 acres. Meaning that on average, farmers were applying CA on 39% of their cropland.

The prevailing answer as for the reasons of not converting all of their land to CA was that they first wanted to try out and see the effects of the new cultivation method before taking the risk to experiment on the whole of their fields. Yet there was a unanimous perspective towards little by little adopting CA on the all the plots once it had shown that the achieved benefits overweigh possible difficulties in its implementation, as the ones discussed further below.

JA;AC &5TQ3494'1>5Q9@58'56'9D4'9D=44'&!'Q=@87@Q34:Z''

How did farmers in Karatu bring into practice the three basic principles as stipulated in the theoretical CA framework?

0@8@T?T':5@3'>@:9?=21874' The principle of mechanically disturbing the soil as less as possible is at the core of the CA concept. There are implements specifically developed for CA to avoid the complete turnover of the soil profile during the different agricultural activities, such as e.g. ripper (minimal tillage and hardpan breaking) or direct (animal-drawn) and jab (manual) planter (FAO, 2012). Yet, during this research it was found that some of the farmers who had participated in the FFS, and who considered themselves as “CA farmers”, had actually ploughed their soil in 2011.

The main reasons for this were the lack of rainfall and free-range grazing, as well as limited access to specific CA equipment. In conditions of limited or irregular rainfall the biomass production decreases, cover crops dry out and residues are not enough to effectively cover the soil. As a consequence, the bare soil is prone to surface crusting and some farmers admitted that they had ploughed this year in order to increase rainwater infiltration in the soil (same observation made by extension officer Mrs Baida from DALDO, see Box 2). Another reason for ploughing was that farmers would rather till their crop residues’ nutrients into the soil than losing them to herds of free grazing livestock. So the issue of no-tillage was not a homogeneous practice amongst the members of the FFS, even though all of them defined themselves

19 as CA practitioners. A few farmers made the distinction between using the ox-plough on their CA plots for less disturbance and tilling the conventional fields by tractor.

M4=T18489':5@3'75N4=' In order to protect the soil from physical erosion processes, prevent the loss of valuable soil moisture and supress weed growth, CA relies on permanent soil cover through mulch or cover crops. Thick dry mulching is not extensively practiced in Karatu, but cover crops are grown to fulfil the function of a protective layer. Leguminous crops such as lablab, mucuna and pigeon pea also act as green manure, providing essential nutrients like nitrogen to the soil.

It has to be noted that mixed cultivation of maize and pigeon pea is the most common cropping system in the area. The combination of cereal and leguminous crops is thus not limited to CA farms but on the contrary is a widely adopted practice in Karatu. Yet the FFS introduced the CA farmers to additional cover crops like lablab and mucuna. Again, there is no sharp distinction as also some non-CA classified farmers planted lablab, or CA farmers grew it on both their Conservation Agriculture and traditional plots. Since all these crops are harvested later than maize, they maintain the soil covered throughout the dry season. While pigeon pea is highly appreciated by the farmers due to its deep rooting and the subsequent positive effect on breaking compacted soil layers, lablab is a vine that spreads extensively and covers the soil densely. It also provides multiple functions, since both the beans and the leaves are edible. On the other hand, mucuna is no food crop and therefore much less planted in Karatu (Ringo et al., 2007). Farmers also sometimes spread a few pumpkin seeds in between the maize. In 2011 most of the pumpkin plants dried out due to the lack of rainfall, but in wetter years they also perform as cover crops protecting the soil.

Keeping the soil covered continuously is one of the pillars of Conservation Agriculture but encounters difficulties in drier climates where biomass production is generally low. So when there is a competition for the dry crop residues between leaving it on the field or its use as animal feed, the first option encounters several drawbacks, as already mentioned above. At the time of this survey, the percentage of soil cover observed during the visits to the CA fields varied significantly from a protective layer to much less denser coverage.

&=5Q'=5919@58'5='1::57@19@58' Practically none of the interviewed farmers followed an annual crop rotation scheme on their fields. Maize is the households’ staple food, and due to the small farm size it is planted year after year to ensure the families’ home consumption (Ringo et al., 2007). Instead mixed cropping is practiced, with maize and pigeon pea being the most common synergetic crop combination (see previous paragraphs on cover crops) for both CA and non-CA farmers.

JA;AF R?=9D4='1:Q479:'56'&!'Q=179@74'@8'(1=19?'

Conservation Agriculture is based on the three fundamental conceptual pillars, but next to them there is a series of other factors that condition the current state of CA adoption in Karatu district: ' &!'4X?@QT489' So as to facilitate the application of the CA principles, special implements and tools have been designed for land preparation and planting with the least soil disturbance. Tools can be manual or animal-drawn and are cheaper when manufactured in Tanzania than when imported from Brazil (e.g. 220-250,000 TSh vs. 700,000 for a direct planter). Yet they require an enormous investment, and practically no individual 20 farmer owned any of the specific CA equipment. Instead, tools belonged to the FFS and were shared between the members. ' ,@N4:957V' 19 of the interviewed farmers stated that they didn’t practice free grazing of their animals on the fields, but kept and fed them around the homestead, or in few cases they were kept somewhere else outside the farm. Five farmers led their livestock graze on the surrounding fields. ' !G=57D4T@713:' In Conservation Agriculture, non-selective herbicides like Round-Up are promoted as an alternative to tillage for land preparation before planting. Their use is not very common in Karatu, and as a matter of fact none of the sampled non-CA farmers were currently using them. But farmers in the FFS received one bottle of herbicide for the experimental CA group plot and were trained in its safe and efficient use. 50% of the interviewed CA farmers were using herbicide. One non-CA farmer who was already member of a FFS and planning to start with CA in the near future stated that he would then apply herbicide since that is how he had learned it in the CA project. Due to low soil fertility, when farmers can afford it they purchase mineral fertilizers. Pesticides are applied when the affected crops require treatment.

Even though their objectives and principles may be similar, CA differs from organic agriculture by allowing the use of chemical crop inputs such as herbicides, pesticides and mineral fertilizers. Nonetheless some of the farmers didn’t apply any of these and combine CA with organic fertilizers and disease management (Owenya et al., 2011).

0=:'"1@>1b:'N@4U'58'&58:4=N19@58'!G=@7?39?=4'' O.@:9=@79'!G=@7?39?=13'18>',@N4:957V'*66@74'=4:Q58:@234'65='&!'@8'(1=19?P'

• Farmers are generally positive about their experience with CA • In dry years, some farmers prefer to plough in order to make the most of the first rainfall • Drought also affects cattle = too weak for animal-draft CA equipment (e.g. ripper heavier than normal plough) • Lablab performs well as cover crop and farmers can get a high price for the beans • Lablab also has another advantage: after maize is harvested and dried out, lablab is still green on the field, thus impeding pastoralists to send their cattle to graze on the field (same remark made by Mr. Deo Ngotio, CPAR) • Free grazing (by “strangers”) is a problem, by-laws are not strict enough and penalties are very low • CA farmers use specialized equipment such as jab planter, etc. • After harvesting, both maize and cover crop residues are “chopped” and left on the field • CA farmers use herbicide for weed management without soil disturbance • CA-SARD gave the FFS groups herbicide, then on the experimental plots different strategies were tested (with/without herbicide) '

"5E'CA'<894=N@4U'U@9D'0=:'"1@>1'6=5T'.!,.*'O(1=19?W'CLA`ACL;;P' ' '

21 &5TT?813'341=8@8G'Q=574::'56'&!' The introduction of CA by means of the FFS approach has led to an empowerment of the farmers. Not only could they test different cropping strategies on the experimental CA plots, the group learning process and interaction also strengthened their social networks (Stewart, 2011). Often farmers collaborated amongst them on their private land during planting, weeding and harvesting in exchange of food, saving costs for external labour. The earnings from the FFS harvest were shared between the involved members or served as savings that farmers could turn into a form of microcredits in case of need. Some farmers received the opportunity to get funding to attend the Farmer’s Day (“Nane Nane”) in Arusha from the FFS or local NGO’s like CPAR.

'

JA;AJ R1=T4=:b'4EQ4=@4874:'56'&!'24846@9:'18>'758:9=1@89:'

During the interviews, farmers were asked to share their experiences about applying CA techniques on their own land. Figure 10 and Figure 11 show an overview of the topics that came up when farmers were asked to name the beneficial effects of CA but also the difficulties that hinder the adoption process. The questions were open in order to get a grasp on the principal impacts that farmers associate with CA. After their initial spontaneous answers (as shown in the mentioned figures), in some cases further discussion arose around those subjects. Any additional information and opinions are also included here.

"4846@9:'56'&!'Q=179@74'

The three main benefits that were repeatedly mentioned by the CA farmers are increased yields, better soil fertility and improved water infiltration and storage in the soil. This indicates that the majority of the farmers identify the improved productivity and health of their land as the principal advantage of CA.

R@G?=4';LA'"4846@9:'56'&!'1:'Q4=74@N4>'2H'61=T4=:'@8'(1=19?''

I0(9*!I4BJ91!0.!(7B9:!('9!19:)93(7K9!(0)73:!,919!1/7:9L!J6!('9!75(91K79,9L!M$!./1B91:N!:)05(/5904:!19/3(705:!(0!/5!0)95! O49:(705&!:9K91/8!/5:,91:!)0::7J89-!P'95!75O471752!:)937.73/886!/J04(!('9!9..93(:!0.!M$!05!910:705&!EGQ!0.!('9!./1B91:! /..71B9L!('/(!M$!,/:!9..93(7K986!305(1088752!910:705!05!('971!.798L:!":99!G-GH!!! 22 &=5Q'Q=5>?79@58' The observed increase in their yields was the most commonly mentioned aspect of CA pointed out by the interviewed farmers. 80% of the farmers stated that since the implementation of CA, their crops were yielding better. Mostly this was expressed with regard to maize. Some farmers specified the general rise of productivity they had seen on their fields in terms of bags of maize.

To a certain point farmers were also aware of what happens on their neighbours’ fields. One farmer in Tloma village was proud to tell that despite this dry year he harvested 12 bags of maize on his parcel of two acres, whereas the adjacent three acre plot of his neighbour under conventional cultivation only produced three bags in total. Under the same or very similar conditions of soil, slope, orientation etc., the CA plot resisted the drought and the harvest was six times higher than on the neighbouring non-CA field.

An increase in production provides more stability to the farm household. One farmer remarked that the higher yields of maize through CA assured the family’s food self-sufficiency as they now produced enough bags to satisfy their staple food demands. Another farmer stated that with the surplus production they were now selling part of their harvest, while before applying CA they kept the whole of it for their home consumption. The higher yields opened them access to the market and therefore played an important role in improving their livelihoods.

-66479:'56'&!'58':5@3'Q=5Q4=9@4:' Many farmers recognized the increase in production as the result of the improved soil conditions on their CA plots. 17 out of the 24 interviewed farmers mentioned the better soil fertility as one of the main observed benefits of CA. They saw how pigeon pea and lablab cover crops added nutrients to the soil, and 13 farmers also highlighted the improved water holding capacity of the soil. Farmers appreciated the breaking up of subsoil hardpans by the mechanical action of special CA ripper equipment as well as the deep pigeon pea roots.

A few farmers also made more specific remarks showing a profound understanding of the soil and its functioning: they noticed a higher amount of humus, organic matter and microorganisms and an improvement in the soil structure. In the open question, only three farmers named a positive effect on erosion through CA, expressing the relatively low impact and concern regarding soil loss. But as shown in chapter 4.4, when asked specifically about the effect of CA on erosion, the majority affirmed that the cover crops were effectively reducing the erosive processes on their land. In general, the large majority of farmers would agree on the positive impact of CA on reversing or preventing land degradation.

As one farmer from Kilimatembo village observed, his plot was unfertile but started to improve after only two years of CA practice. He noticed less compaction thanks to pigeon pea and a decrease in erosion due to the ability of the long-lasting lablab crop to maintain the soil protected after the maize harvest.

&=5Q'@8Q?9:'' CA is being promoted by national and international agricultural research organizations as an input-saving technology that requires less labour and limits the use of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides. Seven farmers pointed out the minimised time and labour when asked about the difference that CA had made on their fields. Some farmers also said that the expenses under CA were lower because they did not plough, thus no need to hire external workers and oxen.

23 With regard to weed control, some of the farmers began to use herbicides after attending the Farmer Field Schools. In Tloma village, a member of the Kinara FFS said that they were no longer using herbicide on the group plot because after a certain time weeds are not a problem anymore. On his own land where he had more recently started with CA he was still applying herbicide on all the CA plots.

Another farmer from Kilimatembo village made the calculation that with 1 litre of Round-Up herbicide (15,000 TSh) he could control weed growth during one month compared to ploughing (for which he usually spent 40,000 TSh). After spraying, only few weeds emerge so one manual handpicking done by himself saved him the costs of weeding twice with a total of 40,000 TSh spent for external labour. In his case, he managed to reduce the expenses for land preparation by more than 80%.

!>>@9@5813'24846@9:' Farmers also mentioned further aspects of CA that they considered beneficial for their farm and family. Four of them pointed out that the edible lablab leaves provided an additional food source for the household and the animals, especially in the dry season. Due to the late harvest, lablab was said to suppress weed growth and one farmer emphasised that the cover crop was a way to prevent cattle from free grazing on his field. Three farmers agreed on the positive impact of CA on their fields already in the first few years of practicing it. This is a considerable aspect when analysing the factors that determine a successful adoption of CA, since a quick manifestation of the benefits is likely to trigger farmers’ willingness to thoroughly apply the new technique on (broader areas of) their land (Giller et al., 2009).

Furthermore the FFS approach has given farmers the opportunity to learn the fundamentals of soil nutrients, how to monitor crop growth, etc. One farmer from Umoia FFS in Kilimatembo village appreciated the community interaction and solidarity: the FFS earnings are shared by the members or can serve as safety net in case one of them has got a problem, then the following year he or she gives something back from his or her personal harvest.

&58:9=1@89:'95'&!'1>5Q9@58'

After enquiring about the beneficial changes on their land with CA, farmers were asked to share the complications and hampering factors they faced when adopting CA. A series of topics came up, as shown in the following paragraphs: '' &!'4X?@QT489'18>'7=5Q'@8Q?9:' The lack of access to specific CA equipment was by far the most frequently mentioned constraint. 13 of the interviewed farmers named this as one of the major difficulties for CA adoption. Special tools such as the jab or direct planter or furrow-opening power tillers are meant to facilitate non soil-disturbing agricultural practices. But they are expensive, and few farmers can afford to buy them on their own. Meaning that almost all of them are limited to share the equipment donated by the CA-SARD project to the respective Farmer Field Schools. This requires a considerable effort of organization within the group, and it is not always possible to ensure timely access to the equipment for every single member. Since farmers are pressed to seed as soon as the first rains fall, the unavailability of tools is a problem.

Farmers from the Farmer Field Schools Mwangaza B, Umoia and Kinara complained that their groups did not dispose of an own ripper and they had to lend or hire it from other villages. At the same time, many results from the experimental group plots revealed that the yields were highest when the land had

24 previously been prepared with the ripper, loosening compacted subsoil layers. Some farmers remarked that they prefer to use the ripper because it makes deeper furrows than the direct planter. Again, they criticised that the difficult access to the equipment will often lead to a delay in land preparation and planting.

One farmer from Tloma village was planning to buy a ripper and a planter of his own for 300,000 TSh (with a government subsidy of 50%; the original price being 600,000 TSh). Asked how he could manage to afford such an investment, he replied that he would need to sell an ox. Showing that only those with a certain level of wealth and liquidity can consider purchasing private equipment. The rest of the farmers cannot help but arrange themselves with the sharing of the FFS tools. This aspect goes beyond the scope of this research, but only to mention that the power structures in place will also determine the access to equipment. Or else, contacts and connections come in place, as was the case for a farmer in one of the villages who happened to be the husband of the village extension officer: he was one of the few who had a ripper and planter borrowed from SARI.

R@G?=4';;A'&58:9=1@89:'95'&!'1>5Q9@58'1:'Q4=74@N4>'2H'61=T4=:'@8'(1=19?'' ' I0(9*!I4BJ91!0.!(7B9:!('9!19:)93(7K9!(0)73:!,919!1/7:9L!J6!('9!75(91K79,9L!./1B91:N!:)05(/5904:!19/3(705:!(0!/5!0)95! O49:(705&!:9K91/8!/5:,91:!)0::7J89!

Four farmers stated that in their experience CA was more labour and cost-intensive than the conventional way of cultivating. Given the higher crop diversity under CA, planting and harvesting was said to be more time-consuming on the CA plots, and one farmer also distinguished that he needed to weed twice on his CA field compared to only once on the remaining plots. The unavailability or high prices of legume seeds in the agro-shops were mentioned as a constraint for planting cover crops, and also herbicides were associated with too high expenses. One farmer said that during land preparation,

25 farmers often do not have the money to buy herbicide for pre-emergence weed control as an alternative to ploughing.

,@N4:957V' The other important aspect that often came up during the interviews was the problematic relationship between CA crop management and livestock. About a third of the farmers raised the issue of free-range grazing. Animals enter their fields and feed from the crop residues, leaving the soil bare and unprotected. One farmer from Kilimatembo village said that other people would send their livestock graze on his land even during the night, and another woman agreed on the problem that some conventional farmers became jealous when seeing the benefits on the CA plots. Contradictory to the statement that lablab would hinder cattle to come graze on the fields (because of its longer growing period it is still green when maize is harvested), she claimed that the nightly grazing was effectively breaking the existing by- laws that prohibit foraging on green fields. ' &3@T194' The dry climatic conditions were another aspect that was recurrently named as one of the hindering factors for a successful adoption of CA. Also the interviewed non-CA farmers were suffering the lack or irregularity of rainfall and complained about it during the interviews. But in CA specifically, dry years cause several problems and six CA farmers mentioned the climate as one of the first CA constraints that came to their minds. In times of drought, biomass production decreases and the cover crops risk to dry out. Given the competitive use of crop residues between livestock feed and soil cover, the CA plots often end up being almost as bare and unprotected as the conventional fields.

The appearance of weeds or soil surface crusting leads some farmers to plough their land in drier years, thus breaking against the principle of minimum soil disturbance. One farmer from Ayalabe village stated that during the season 2011 he did not even plant lablab because he was already foreseeing a dry season and crop failure. As a matter of fact many farmers, both CA and non-CA, complained about not having any harvest from their leguminous crops (see chapter 4.2.2).

01=V49' The promotion of CA in Karatu involved the introduction of new leguminous cover crops. Farmers appreciated the diversification of species but some of them argued that there was no market to sell their products from lablab and mucuna production. In that case, no additional cash income can be generated for the household’s livelihood. Unlike lablab, mucuna cannot be used for human consumption, explaining its limited adoption in Karatu.

*9D4='61795=:'758:9=1@8@8G'&!'1>5Q9@58' Land tenure and ownership also play a role in the adoption process. Sometimes the land that is available for rent has already been ploughed. The difficulty in finding plots to rent can lead to a delay in planting. And since there is a big demand for oxen at the moment of rainfall, some farmers are reluctant to lend their draft cattle to CA farmers for activities like ripping. So the lack of ownership of land, equipment and oxen can make it harder for farmers to timely pursue their cultivation activities.

Karatu district is bordering the Ngorongoro National Park. The downside of the area’s great biodiversity lies in the fact that wild animals are a threat for agriculture, be it CA or conventional farming. Every year, elephants cause important crop damages on the fields. When wandering around in groups of up to 30

26 animals, they can completely destroy a harvest, and many farmers are suffering the production losses due to elephants (also see chapter 4.2.2).

JA;AK .46@8@8G'c9D4d'&!'61=T4='@8'(1=19?'

The main aim of this research consists of finding whether there is a noticeable difference in the overall field-scale and farm productivity and profitability between CA and non-CA farmers. Yet, during the survey it became clear that the boundaries between what is and what is not CA, are not so simple to set. The conceptual principles of CA encounter modifications and adaptations once they are brought into practice and applied on the field.

First of all, next to their “experimental” CA plots the majority of farmers were still continuing with their conventional way of farming on the rest of their fields. For this research it meant that there weren’t two sharply opposed, distinguishable groups as in contrasting exclusively CA-growing and non-CA farmers. Furthermore as discussed above, some CA farmers had ploughed their fields in 2011 as a response to either the dry weather conditions or free grazing livestock, soil cover density was very variable and intercropping maize and legumes was the norm for both CA and non-CA farmers.

Still the members of the FFS did their best to apply the acquired knowledge on the principles of CA to their fields. They acknowledged a change in their growing methods and in overall terms considered themselves committed to the innovative CA adoption process. The limited sample size did not allow for more detailed classifications but in order to reflect the adaptive character of CA practices the following chapter on field-scale comparison will make a distinction between the “CA” plots and those where farmers had -exceptionally- ploughed the soil in 2011 (named as “ca”).

27 !'Q4=:5813':95=H_'./##'e@913@:b:'4EQ4=@4874'U@9D'&!'

“I only started with CA two years ago and I can already see a difference in the soil and the yields.” After becoming introduced to CA in the FFS “Mwangaza B” in Rhotia village, Mr. Vitalis Basso stopped ploughing on three acres of his land where he now grows maize, pigeon pea and lablab. He follows an annual rotation scheme of one acre planted with maize and lablab, one acre maize and pigeon pea and another one with marigold flowers under contract farming (for oil production). The legume crops together with some additional sunflower and pumpkin provide enough cover to keep the soil protected from the sun, rain and wind. The 62-year old farmer says he notices the increased soil moisture and fertility and his production has risen from 8 to 12-13 bags of maize within such a short time. What are the main advantages of CA? “Minimised costs for land preparation and fertilizers.”

In the first year of switching to CA, he sprayed Round-Up herbicide to clear the field prior to planting, but didn’t feel the need for it afterwards – he says he has less weed infection on the fields than before. Same as on the group plots of his FFS (Owenya et al., 2011) he also stopped buying mineral fertilizers and now only applies manure for nutrient management. Part of the maize stems are left on the field to turn into organic matter, and after feeding crop residues to his three cattle, four sheep and one pig he returns the leftovers onto the field. Proudly, he also presents his collection of homemade organic pesticides made out of ashes, boiled tobacco leaves, etc.

CA as a holistic, resource-saving and more productive technology – but did he also experience any inconvenient or difficulties during the adoption process? He nods and says that the biggest challenge is the access to specialised CA equipment. They are 17 members in the FFS and have to share the ripper and the jab planter between them. This requires a good coordination but can sometimes lead to conflicts and a delay in planting, a crucial issue for small-scale farmers like them.

Nonetheless his overall experience with CA is very positive and has brought a better livelihood situation for himself and his household of six persons. Additionally he has also observed a decrease in erosion on his relatively steep slopes. So is he going to extend CA to the remaining half an acre land, currently planted with maize only? He says yes, now that he has seen the benefits of CA. So far he has taught his family by comparing the CA with the conventional plots. Mzee Vitalis is very engaged and also tries to encourage his neighbours to convert to CA. Yet he recognizes that the adoption of new techniques is a learning process that requires time and demonstrable results. For him, the traditional way of sharing knowledge and labour within the rural community are two essential pillars that could contribute to a successful spread and adoption of CA, as he was eager to communicate in a written statement on the occasion of a second visit to his farm (Appendix B).

' ' "5E'FA'<894=N@4U'U@9D'0='./##'e@913@:'"1::5'O%D59@1'N@331G4W'*79524='CL;;P'

28 JAC R@43>^34N43'75TQ1=@:58'56'&!'18>'858^&!'7?39@N19@58'

Before taking a closer look at the overall farm results, a field-level analysis has been undertaken with Olympe in order to compare the input requirements, productivity and profitability of CA versus conventional production at the plot scale. The comparison focuses on maize as the main staple food that is widely intercropped with legumes by both CA and non-CA farmers in Karatu.

Based on the previous chapters, the sample fields were distinguished between “CA”4, “ca” and “non-CA” cultivation. These categories refer to the management at field scale, meaning that the “non-CA” plots can include conventionally cultivated crops from generally classified CA farmers (this is for example the case for the “non-CA” maize-pigeon pea-lablab plots, who are exclusively found on the CA farms, highlighting the fact that the use of lablab is mainly limited to CA farmers). Table 2 gives an overview of the sampled plots by different kind of crop association and cultivation method. In the following paragraphs an analysis of the grouped results for the 3 CA or non-CA production types will be given.

$1234'CA'#1TQ34':@]4'18>'1=41'2H'Q=179@:4>'T1@]4^34G?T4'1::57@19@58

CROP CA ca non-CA ASSOCIATION (n=) acre (n=) acre (n=) acre

M - B - - - - 3 4.50 M - LL 4 2.25 1 1.00 - - M - PP 5 4.00 1 3.00 39 64.75 M - PP - B - - 1 3.00 12 23.00 M - PP - LL 10 10.25 5 6.25 5 8.50 M - PP - LL - B - - 2 3.00 - - M - PP - B - MU - - 2 2.5 - -

TOTAL 19 16.5 12 18.75 60 100.75

R9295L*!!!!!!!;!>!;/7S9!!!!!!!!T!>!T9/5:!!!!!!!RR!>!R/J8/J!!!!!!!UU!>!U72905!)9/!!!!!!!;V!>!;4345/! ! !

JACA; &=5Q'@8Q?9:'

#44>:' Maize was grown with improved seeds, whereas farmers either purchased or used their own legume seeds. For maize, there are no substantial differences in the seed density per acre, the average value was around eight kg for the “CA”, “ca” and “non-CA” fields (Figure 12). Regarding the leguminous crops, the quantities per acre varied more depending on the crop association. On the “CA” fields, farmers planted a little less than 3 kg/acre of both pigeon pea and lablab. Lablab was grown to a much smaller extent on the “non-CA” plots, and in all of the cases these were fields of CA farmers who just added a few seeds to their conventionally cultivated plots. On both “ca” and “non-CA” plots farmers planted almost twice the amount of pigeon pea when compared to “CA”, and they also grew beans. The biggest diversity of crop

G!WM$X!7:!)4(!75!J1/3Y9(:!(0!L7:(75247:'!7(!.10B!('9!29591/8!/JJ19K7/(705!M$!.01!M05:91K/(705!$217348(419! 29 associations was found on the “ca” fields, including the only two plots where mucuna had been planted. These results are partly influenced by a few farmers in Giekrum Arusha village who were very active in the FFS and who had transferred the system of splitting one field into smaller sub-areas where they would grow and rotate (changing sub-plots on the same field) year after year pigeon pea, lablab and also mucuna.

Seed density" (kg/acre)"

10.0 " Maize" 8.0 " Pigeon Pea" 6.0 " 4.0 " Lablab" 2.0 " Beans"

- " Mucuna" CA" ca" non-CA"

R@G?=4';CA'#44>'X?189@9@4:'Q4='7=5Q'18>'7?39@N19@58'T49D5>'

R4=9@3@]4=:' Due of the difficulty to get detailed information from the farmers about the amount of manure applied to the fields, the organic fertilisation has not been quantified at the field scale. Most of the CA farmers confirmed that they were applying manure from their own cattle to their fields, but same as for the conventional farmers, the amount produced on their farms was not sufficient to cover all of the land with appropriate quantities. The highest number given by a farmer were seven tons of manure per acre for a “non-CA” maize-pigeon pea-beans plot, and three tons in the case of one “CA” field with maize-pigeon pea-lablab-mucuna. Yet many farmers, especially those practising CA, were applying manure and crop residues to their fields on a regular basis without being able to express the amounts in verifiable numbers.

The use of mineral fertilizers was not very widespread amongst the interviewed farmers. For solid application, nitrogen in the form of urea was the most common fertilizer, next to phosphate-based MRP or Minjingu, and ammonium phosphate (DAP). Inorganic fertilizer application was only found in plots with the crop association maize and pigeon pea (for “CA” and “non-CA”) and maize, pigeon pea and beans (only “non-CA”). The additional nutrient input and nitrogen fixing when intercropping also with lablab might be an explanation that farmers did not apply extra fertilizers – next to the fact that many of them stated that they did not have the financial means to purchase them in the agro-shops in town. ' M4:9@7@>4:'18>'@8:479@7@>4:' The expenses for pesticides and insecticides were also relatively limited for both CA and non-CA maize plots. Their use was more common in the vegetable gardens. Only two “ca”-plots of respectively maize- pigeon pea and maize-lablab had high pesticide costs of 10,000 TSh/acre, whereas for the remaining fields the costs were much less or none at all.

Some of the interviewed CA farmers (see Box 3) were managing pests and diseases of their crops organically, with homemade remedies such as ash or boiled tobacco leaves.

30 Y4=2@7@>4:' 12 out of the 24 CA farmers were at least sometimes applying herbicide on their fields; mainly, but not only on the ones cultivated under CA. Of the 25 non-CA farmers, none was found to use herbicide. The main product used was Monsanto’s Round-Up, with an average price of 15,000 TSh per bottle of 1 litre. For the “CA” plots the average consumption of herbicide was 8,238 TSh/acre, 1,000 for the “ca” fields and an almost imperceptible 372 TSh for the non-CA fields.

,125?=' When comparing the required amount of time (including family and hired labour) spent for each of the cropping activities on the field, differences between the cultivation methods can be observed. The overall labour input was comparable for “CA” and “ca” with 26.2 and 25.9 mandays per acre, and 21.4 for the “non-CA” plots. Land preparation, planting and weeding took more time on the “CA” and “ca” fields while for weeding more labour was needed on the “non-CA” plots (Figure 13).

Labour input per activity" (mandays/acre)"

Land preparation"

Planting"

Fertilization" CA" Pesticides" ca"

Weeding" non-CA" Harvesting"

TOTAL"

- " 5.0 " 10.0 " 15.0 " 20.0 " 25.0 " 30.0 "

R@G?=4';FA',125?='@8Q?9'65='T1@]4'@894=7=5QQ4>'U@9D'34G?T4:'1775=>@8G'95'7?39@N19@58'T49D5>'

Land preparation on the “CA” plots consisted mainly of clearing the field manually: when herbicide was applied the time could be significantly reduced. Ripping the soil was also included in this category, and during dry years like the season 2010/2011 farmers faced the difficulty that the oxen were weak and it was more energy and time demanding for them to pull the heavy ripper equipment. On the “ca” plots, farmers were ploughing the soil for the reasons described above. On the “non-CA” fields, when farmers could afford to hire a tractor and external labour, the time for land preparation and planting could also be reduced. Planting on the “CA” and “ca” fields was determined by the method (hand hoe, special CA equipment such as direct or jab planter) and the diversity of crops planted. For example some farmers planted lablab only after the maize had already emerged, to prevent the young maize plants from being suppressed by the dense leguminous cover.

Once the crops were growing, weeding was less labour-consuming on the “CA” fields where lablab was planted, providing a dense soil cover protecting from weed infestation. Weeding was generally done twice per season, but some CA farmers stated that under Conservation Agriculture they could reduce it to once. In comparison, weeding activities on the non-CA plots required 25.9% more time.

31 During harvesting, farmers needed to spend more time on their “CA” and “ca” fields than on the conventional ones. This is plausible, given the higher yields especially for maize (as seen in Table 3). As explained below, crop failure for the leguminous plants has been an issue during the studied year and should be kept in mind. Lablab beans don’t all mature at the same time and farmers spend several harvesting turns, which increases the amount of mandays required and at the same time makes precise quantification a little bit more difficult.

The costs for hired labour were 84,101 TSh per acre for the “non-CA” fields, and 45,300 and 63,807 TSh for “CA” and “ca” respectively. Given the innovative and “experimental” character, it was found that farmers tended to work on their Conservation Agriculture fields themselves (family labour) while external labour was more common on the conventionally cultivated plots.

JACAC &=5Q'Q=5>?79@N@9H'18>'Q=56@912@3@9H' f@43>:' Prior to taking a look at the yield results per crop under the different cultivation methods, it is necessary to point out that due to the dry climatic conditions during the planting season 2010/2011, many farmers experienced crop failure on their fields. The lack of rainfall affected the leguminous crops that in many cases dried out and gave no harvest at all. Table 3 shows the obtained yields of all the studied plots with maize-legume intercropping according to the applied cultivation method, next to the percentage of crop failure by type of crop.

$1234'FA'f@43>:'56'T1@]4'18>'@894=7=5QQ4>'34G?T4:'2H'7?39@N19@58'T49D5>'

CA ca non-CA (n=19) (n=12) (n=60) kg/acre % crop failure kg/acre % crop failure kg/acre % crop failure

MAIZE 1131.1 - 1012.2 - 648.9 1.7 PIGEON PEA 68.0 40.0 19.7 18.2 56.6 61.4 LABLAB 30.1 57.1 11.6 50.0 2.4 80.0 BEANS - - 36.7 66.7 14.6 75.0 MUCUNA - - 48.0 50.0 - -

I0(9*!U91395(/29:!9Z)19::!('9!54BJ91!0.!)80(:!,7('!50!'/1K9:(!0K91!('9!(0(/8!54BJ91!0.!)80(:!)8/5(9L!,7('!9/3'!310)! "B/7S9!75!L7..9195(!30BJ75/(705:!0.!8924B9!75(91310))752H!

In a few cases – including the one “non-CA” plot with no maize harvest – the crops were destroyed not only by the difficult climate but also by wild animals, namely elephants that live in the protected areas of Karatu district.

But the majority of crop failures were a consequence of insufficient rainfall, as farmers stated. Was there a difference between the conventional fields and those cultivated under Conservation Agriculture? Regarding e.g. pigeon pea, it could indeed be observed that the “non-CA” plots seemed to have been more affected by crop losses: With no harvest on 61.4% of the “non-CA” fields against 30.8% for “CA” and “ca” together, one might suggest that CA makes the soils and crops more resilient to drought. Yet a 32 larger sample size including all the legumes would be needed to make more statistically relevant observations.

In terms of crop productivity, it has thus to be taken into account that the high number of plots with complete legume crop failure will negatively affect the average yield results. This was not the case for maize, planted on all the sampled fields. Here the difference between the obtained yields was striking. On average, the 19 “CA” fields produced 1131.1 kg of maize per acre, while the result for the 12 “ca” fields was slightly less, 1012.2 kg/acre. Compared to these values, production on the 60 “non-CA” plots was noticeably lower with 648.9 kg/acre. Meaning that with Conservation Agriculture a farmer got 10 to 11 bags of maize à 100 kg per acre, and only 6.5 bags with the normal practices (Figure 14). Interestingly, there is no striking difference in terms of production between the “CA” and “ca” fields, despite the occasional ploughing.

Maize yields"

1200.0" 1000.0" 800.0" 600.0" 400.0" Maize (kg/acre)" 200.0" 0.0" (n=19)" (n=12)" (n=60)" CA plots" ca plots" non-CA plots"

R@G?=4';JA'01@]4'O@894=7=5QQ4>'U@9D'34G?T4:P'D1=N4:9'2H'7?39@N19@58'T49D5>'

All these results refer to maize when intercropped with different legumes. As an indication, six sampled “non-CA” fields with just maize (such mono-cropping contradicts the CA principle of crop diversification through rotation or association) gave even less yield, 527.7 kg/acre. Showing that the practice of simultaneously growing maize and most commonly pigeon pea was also beneficial on the “non-CA” plots. For the leguminous crops, the comparison was more complicated due to the described variety of crop associations, seed density per acre and the many plots with complete crop failure.

Field scale economics " (TSh/acre)"

600,000 " 500,000 " 400,000 " CA (n=19)" 300,000 " 200,000 " ca (n=12)" 100,000 " non-CA (n=60)" - " Input costs"Gross prod. Gross value" margin"

R@G?=4';KA'-7585T@7'75TQ1=@:58'65='T1@]4'@894=7=5QQ4>'U@9D'34G?T4:'2H'7?39@N19@58'T49D5>' ' 33 M=56@912@3@9H'1813H:@:' When it comes to the economical performance at field level, the cultivation method makes a difference. The overall input costs were comparable for “CA”, “ca” and “non-CA” (Table 4), but the gross production value showed a clear impact of Conservation Agriculture (Figure 15). Although the leguminous crops fetched a much higher price at the market - e.g. around 90,000 TSh per bag of 120kg of pigeon pea against only 40,000 TSh for 100 kg of maize – the relatively small amounts harvested meant that maize was still the main contributor to the gross production value (Table 3).

As a result, the gross margin per acre was significantly higher for “CA” and “ca” when compared to the benefits obtained on the “non-CA” fields (Table 4). The gross benefit for “CA” was 130.9% higher than for “non-CA”, in the case of “ca” this difference was still 107.4%.

$1234'JA'&5:9:'18>'Q=56@912@3@9H'65='T1@]4'@894=7=5QQ4>'U@9D'34G?T4:'2H'7?39@N19@58'T49D5> ' CA ca non-CA (n=19) (n=12) (n=60)

Seeds 39,306 41,576 36,398 Fertilizer 10,855 2,150 5,227 Pesticides 1,007 2,150 721 Herbicides 8,238 1,000 372 Land rental 10,029 - 5,603 External labour 45,300 63,807 84,101 TOTAL INPUT COSTS 114,735 108,534 132,422

Prod. costs per kg 97 104 187

RETURNS Gross prod. Value 507,044 460,976 302,357 Gross margin 392,309 352,443 169,935 Return to labour (GM/manday) 15,751 13,598 8,036

!

,125?='Q=5>?79@N@9H' When relating the gross margin to the amount of invested labour, there was again not a big difference between the “CA” and the “ca” fields (15,751 vs. 13,598 TSh per manday). For the “non-CA” plots this value was as low as 8,036 TSh, expressing that the higher overall labour effort for the Conservation Agriculture plots in the end paid out in terms of an increased gross benefit production per manday spent on the field. Again, this can be explained by the differences in maize yields and the higher gross crop production value for “CA” and “ca”.

The average wage rate that the interviewed farmers were paying for hired labour was 3,000 TSh per day. So the return to labour results indicate that at least when it comes to agricultural income, farmers see more profits coming in from their own fields as if they would go and work on somebody else’s farm instead. Off-farm income in the form of an employment and salary in town might relate differently, but will be discussed later in the farm analysis section.

34 JAF R1=T^34N43'75TQ1=@:58'56'&!'18>'758N489@5813'Q=179@74:'

The previous chapters compared the inputs and outcomes of CA versus the traditional practices on the field scale. Yet the reality is far more complex and every plot is part of an entire farm. The following section will explore the impact of CA from a farm-scale perspective.

JAFA; R1=T'9HQ535GH'

The previous section analysed the impact of CA on the field level. Since it was observed that the main results are pretty similar for both the “CA” and the “ca” plots, for this research it can be assumed that adopting Conservation Agriculture in a more flexible way without fulfilling the three principles at all times did not make a significant difference for the farm performance as a whole.

When considering the impact of CA in Karatu from a farm-scale perspective, the question arises whether there is a difference in crop profitability between the farmers who adopted CA and those who do conventional farming. So in the first place it is interesting to ask what kind of farmers can be distinguished in general. What are the characteristics of the interviewed households?

Maize and legume intercropping is the most common cultivation practice for farmers in Karatu. However, it was found that some farmers produce a broader variety of crops: e.g. cereals like finger millet, sorghum, wheat, oil plants like sunflower and safflower, as well as coffee, tobacco, vegetables and nursery-growing fruit bearing or timber trees. Crop diversification can make a substantial difference for smallholder farms not only in terms of household consumption and nutrition, but also with regard to the economic importance and cash income generation of the farm.

Based on the gathered data from the field visits, a farm typology was established distinguishing five different farm strategies. The interviewed farmers were classified according to their cultivation method (CA/non-CA) and the crop diversification of their farms: farms with no income other than from maize and legumes, farms with some additional cash income from other crops and farms with an important income generation mainly based on vegetable production and tree nursery (Table 5).

$1234'KA'R1=T':9=194G@4:'56'7=5Q'>@N4=:@6@719@58

FARM TYPE 1 No income from crops other than maize and legumes

FARM TYPE 2 Some production and income generation from additional crops

FARM TYPE 3 High value cash income from mainly vegetable production and tree nursery

Table 6 shows the different categories of farmers included in this research. Within the CA farmers, type 1 exclusively grew maize and legumes whereas type 2 produced additional crops. None of the interviewed CA farmers had a high income from crops other than maize and legumes comparable to a few non-CA farmers who did (type 3). For the non-CA farmers, the three categories were established.

35 $1234'IA'R1=T'9HQ535GH'1775=>@8G'95'7?39@N19@58'T49D5>'18>'7=5Q'>@N4=:@6@719@58'

CA non-CA Farm type 1 Farm type 2 Farm type 1 Farm type 2 Farm type 3 (n=16) (n=8) (n=16) (n=8) (n=3) HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS 6.2 7.0 6.0 5.0 6.0

LAND/CAPITA (acre) 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.9

CROP LAND (acre) 2.8 5.0 2.9 2.9 5.2

CA maize + legumes 1.5 1.2 - - - Non-CA maize + legumes 1.4 2.1 2.9 2.5 3.9 Other crops - 1.7 - 0.4 1.3

LIVESTOCK UNITS 3.2 2.7 1.6 2.1 3.0

LIVESTOCK UNITS/AREA 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5

' How do the different categories compare to each other in general terms? The average household size was slightly larger for the sampled CA farmers than for the non-CA ones (6.5 vs. 5.8 members) with the biggest discrepancy between the CA farmers of type 2 (7.0 members) and the non-CA farmers of the same class (5.0). As for the importance of livestock, the more diversified non-CA farms had more livestock units than the ones exclusively growing maize and legumes, whereas for the CA farmers the tendency is slightly inversed. For farm type 1, the CA farmers double the livestock units of their respective non-CA comparison group.

With respect to the land, the average farm size and land tenure per capita is similar for the CA and non- CA farmers of type 1 wherein the former adopted the CA technology on roughly half of their area while keeping the other half under conventional cultivation. This changes with farm type 2, where the more diversified CA farms only dedicate 1.2 out of 5.0 acres in total to CA maize and legumes. The remaining fields are planted with non-CA maize and legumes as well as other income generating crops. Indifferently of whether they practiced CA or not, the farms with less available land per capita exclusively grew maize and legumes, whereas increased crop diversification was taking place on farms who disposed of more land to feed each household member.

For the remaining classes, comparison is slightly more difficult given that there does not exist a type 3- group of CA farmers with high income from other than staple food production. In terms of total size, the CA farms of type 2 are more similar to the non-CA farmers of type 3, but further on differences in the economic dimension of the farms will be shown.

JAFAC R1=T^:7134'Q4=:Q479@N4'58'&!'Q=56@912@3@9H'

After entering the questionnaire data into the Olympe database, the individual farmers were classified and grouped together according to the before mentioned typology. Olympe then created a new model farmer for each farm type based on the average values of the individual farmers comprised in the respective category. How do the five “typical” farmers look like? Table 7 shows a comparative view of the main economic parameters for each category of farmer.

36

$1234'\A'*N4=N@4U'56'61=T'47585T@7:'2H'7?39@N19@58'T49D5>'18>'61=T'9HQ4'

CA non-CA (in 1,000 TSh) Farm type 1 Farm type 2 Farm type 1 Farm type 2 Farm type 3 (n=16) (n=8) (n=16) (n=8) (n=3) CROP LAND (acre) 2.8 5.0 2.9 2.9 5.2 CA maize + legumes 1.5 1.2 - - - non-CA maize + legumes 1.4 2.1 2.9 2.5 3.9 Other crops - 1.7 - 0.4 1.3 CROP PRODUCTION Labour input (mandays) 73 82 59 66 91 Total input costs 376 321 359 450 3,341 Gross production value 1,132 1,798 857 1,081 7,656 GROSS MARGIN 1,088 2,859 1,004 1,550 5,836 GM Crop production 757 1,476 499 631 4,315 GM Livestock production 331 1,382 505 918 1,521

FARM General farm expenses 31 54 197 150 3 Additional farm income 47 5 8 - 67

NET AGR. INCOME 1,104 2,810 814 1,399 5,900

HOUSEHOLD Expenses 1,707 2,352 1,865 1,561 2,083 Home consumption 515 640 374 362 287 Off-farm income 427 235 889 240 600

NET FARM BALANCE -692 52 -536 -284 4,130 (excl. credits)

Credits 584 - 22 7 - NET FARM BALANCE -108 52 -514 -277 4,130

Given the similarity in total and per capita land area, the CA and non-CA farm type 1 can also easily be compared to each other in absolute terms. Taking each one as a standardised farmer representing the average reality of a farm exclusively growing maize and legumes, the CA farmer got noticeably better results than the comparable non-CA farmer. The former one invested more mandays (+23.7%) and expenses (+4.8%) for crop inputs (seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides) but in turn the gross crop production value of his farm was almost three times as high (+32.1%) as the one from the non-CA farmer. This is the result of increased yields and drought resistance of the CA crops, as seen in the previous chapter 4.2.2.

&=5Q'G=5::'T1=G@8:' When contrasting the balance of crop input expenses and the obtained gross production value (Figure 16) per acre for the five categories, it becomes clear that the market-oriented non-CA farm type 3 stands out against the rest of the interviewed farmers. The economic dimension of inputs, outcome and the 37 resulting gross margin of 829,840 TSh per acre reached values far beyond the remaining farms, all below 300,000 TSh/acre. These three farmers managed to generate a much higher income by producing and commercialising a variety of fresh vegetables, tree seedlings or in case of one farmer, even selling the maize cobs individually to a group of women street vendors.

2,000,000" (TSh/acre) 1,800,000" 1,600,000" 1,400,000" 1,200,000" 1,000,000" 800,000" 600,000" 400,000" 200,000" 0" Input costs" (n=16)" (n=8)" (n=16)" (n=6)" (n=3)" Gross production value" Farm type 1" Farm type 2" -" Farm type 1" Farm type 2" Farm type 3" Gross margin" CA" non-CA"

R@G?=4';IA'"131874'56'7=5Q'Q=5>?79@58'75:9:'18>'24846@9:'1775=>@8G'95'61=T'9HQ535GH'

As for the farm types 1 and 2, the cultivation method (CA vs. non-CA) seemed to make a bigger difference than the farm size or crop diversification. In any case the total crop production gross margin per acre was higher for the farms that grew more than just maize and legumes. Especially for the non-CA farmers where farm type 2 achieved a 24.0% higher gross margin than farm type 1 (of the same size) as the result of an almost proportional increase in production costs (+22.7%) and gross value of the produced outcome (+23.5%). For the CA farmers, the difference was moderately less with 9.8% more gross margin for the more diversified farm type 2. Interestingly, their gross production value and even more the production costs were in fact less than for farm type 1 (-10.6% and -51.9%).

900,000 " 800,000 " 700,000 " GROSS MARGIN / acre" 600,000 " (in TSh)" 500,000 " 400,000 " CA Maize + Legumes" 300,000 " 200,000 " non-CA Maize + Legumes" 100,000 " Other crops" - " (n=16)" (n=8)" (n=16)" (n=6" (n=3)" Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm type 1" type 2" type 1" type 2" type 3"

CA" -" non-CA"

R@G?=4';\A'M=56@912@3@9H'75TQ1=@:58'2H'7=5Q:W'7?39@N19@58'T49D5>'18>'61=T'9HQ535GH'' ' I0(9*!%5!:0B9!0.!('9!)80(:!0.!./1B!(6)9!=!B/7S9!7:!210,5!(029('91!,7('!K929(/J89:&!50!:9)/1/(705!0.!('9!)80(!75!('9!%86B)9! L/(/J/:9&!210::!B/1275!.01!0K91/88!310)!)10L43(705!

38 Taking a closer look at the economic results detailed per crops (Figure 17), there are some clear differences between the five farm categories. It is again visible at first sight that farm type 3 obtained the most profitable outcome from its crop production. Since these three farmers grew maize also in combination with vegetables, in Olympe no separate categories could be established so the gross margin stands for all the crops together. The sale of fresh vegetables and tree seedlings also seemed very beneficial for the non-CA farm type 2, who’s gross margin of 677,827 TSh/acre more than doubled the results for the CA farm type 2. It has to be stated however that the per acre results risk to be influenced by the sometimes difficult area estimation of the vegetable plots, and gross margins depend on the kind of crop grown there. So the non-CA farm type 2 only had an average of 0.4 acres of other crops than maize and legume but seemed to cultivate more cost-efficiently than the comparable CA farm type on 1.7 acres.

The comparison becomes more interesting when contrasting the results for maize and legume cultivation. Here for both CA farm types the fields under CA performed significantly better than their conventional plots, with an internal difference of gross margin of +111.8% for CA farm type 1 and +120.0% for farm type 2. So the same farmers experienced very distinct economic results within their farms according to the cultivation method they applied.

The impact of CA can thus be determined in terms of a clearly more profitable balance of inputs and outcome. The gross margin per acre was highest for the CA plots of CA farm type 2 (426,219 TSh), an increase of +118.1% from the lowest value, 147,918 TSh for the fields of the comparable non-CA type 2. At the same time, the gross margin per acre for conventional maize and legumes is practically the same for CA farm type 1 and the comparable non-CA type, both around 170,000 TSh.

Between the two CA farm types, the one with a more diversified crop production achieved higher gross margins on both the CA and non-CA fields when compared to the one cultivating exclusively maize and legumes. Both CA farm types cultivated maize intercropped with legumes under CA and conventional methods. However as Figure 18 shows, the impact of CA on the overall balance of the farms’ crop production was much higher for farm type 1. The CA fields accounted for 69.5% of the gross margin, while the area was of comparable size (1.5 acres of CA and 1.4 non-CA). For the more diversified farm type 2, the conventionally cultivated maize and legume fields as well as the other crops were together more important in terms of size and gross margin accumulation. In this case, the CA plots only contributed 35.6% to the overall farm gross margin from crop production.

Contribution of CA to farm crop gross margin" 100%" 90%" 80%" 70%" 60%" 50%" Other crops" 40%" 30%" non-CA Maize + Legumes" 20%" 10%" CA Maize + Legumes" 0%" (n=16)" (n=8)" Farm type 1" Farm type 2" CA" CA"

' R@G?=4';BA'

39 ,125?='' In the field-scale analysis it was shown that the CA fields with maize and legumes brought better gross margin results at the price of increased labour requirements. What about labour quantification from an overall farm-scale perspective? The smaller CA farm type 1 (with half of the land cultivated by means of Conservation Agriculture) invested 25.9 mandays/acre, including the totality of the produced crops. Which is more than the non-CA farm types 1 and 2, comparable in size: 20.6 and 22.6 mandays respectively.

What is striking is that both the CA and non-CA larger and more diversified farm types appear to have required less labour per acre. The CA farm type 2 (16.4 mandays) and the non-CA farm type 3 (17.6 mandays) accounted at the same time for the highest crop gross margins. Hence this results in equally superior values in terms of return to labour. For example the gross margin per manday for non-CA farm type 3 was more than four times higher than the one of CA farm type 1 (47,419 TSh vs.10,363 TSh).

This could lead to the assumption that increased farm size and diversification of crops favour a more profitable use of labour. It is however important to consider the problematic recording of reliable labour data for the vegetable gardens, often maintained on a day-to-day basis rather than the more concentrated labour peaks for the maize and legume fields. Similar as to what has been said in the field- level analysis, the results of all the five different farm types have in common that they are above the locally average daily wage of 3,000 TSh for agricultural labour, i.e. employing external workers. This means that farmers would be encouraged to invest in their own land instead of going to work on somebody else’s farm.

JAFAF R1=T'18>'D5?:4D53>'47585T@7:'

When evaluating the impact of CA and the different farm types, it is useful to take a broader look at the overall farm revenues and expenses (Table 7).

,@N4:957V'['G484=13'61=T'4EQ48:4:'18>'=4N48?4:' Next to the crop production, farmers in Karatu also generated income from their livestock keeping. The main sources of revenue were selling animal products like milk and eggs, as well as selling or lending draft cattle. Yet the importance of livestock for the farm economics was heterogeneous among the classified farm types. Table 6 shows that the number of livestock units per area is highest for the maize and legume exclusive CA farm type 1 and the bigger, diversified, market-oriented non-CA farm type 3. However this is not reflected in the economic benefits generated from livestock activities, see Table 7. While the latter obtained on average 1,521,167 TSh in absolute terms, the simple CA farm type had the lowest livestock income (331,188 TSh) whereas the more diversified and bigger one accounted 1,382,281 TSh. Indeed it looks like the gross margin from livestock production increased with the size of the farm and the diversification of crops. In general it can be stated that livestock serves as security net for farmers, especially cattle can be sold in case the crops fail or bigger investments are needed.

Seemingly, the farms that relied on a more diverse range of activities also made the most profit out of them while the simpler farms were more oriented at their own home consumption. Yet again, since this research only retrieved data from one single year, it is difficult to evaluate these results. Especially since the annual amounts of inputs (feed, veterinary costs) and outputs were subject to the interviewees’ estimations and extrapolations. A certain level of uncertainty should be considered and e.g. whether a

40 farmer purchased or sold a head of cattle this specific year or not could make an important difference in the overall balance.

The same holds for the general farm revenues and expenses. Those farmers who bought new tools, built a shed or had higher maintenance costs in 2011 accounted for increased expenditures. On the other hand, only the CA farm type 1 and the larger non-CA farm type 3 counted with some additional income based on e.g. lending out equipment or draft oxen to other farmers.

)49'1G=@7?39?=13'@875T4' The net agricultural income of the three farm types comparable in size (CA type 1, non-CA type 1 and 2) shows that the CA farms were situated in between the two conventional categories: 814,010 TSh, 1,103,710 TSh and 1,399,231 TSh respectively. This relatively good position of the smaller CA farms is due to their before mentioned high gross margin for crop production, 51.7% higher than the one of the same non-CA farm type (maize and legumes only) and also 19.2% higher than for the more diversified non-CA farm type 2. The CA farm type 2 is comparable in size to the non-CA farm type 3, and their net agricultural incomes of 2,809,938 TSh and 5,899,667 TSh were both beyond the dimension of the previously described smaller farms. Still the three non-CA farms achieved a visibly higher income as a consequence of their market-oriented and diversified cropping system.

R1T@3H'['566^61=T'4EQ48:4:'18>'=4N48?4:' In a farm-scale analysis, also the family’s private expenses and off-farm income are of interest in order to get a broad picture of the farm as a whole. Nevertheless, the reliability of these data once more has to be taken with due caution given the difficulty to obtain precise estimations for annual food, health etc. expenses. In the same sense, the declarations of additional revenues might not always be complete, as discussed in 5.1. Taking these considerations into account, the results (Table 7) show elevated expenses for all the different farm types, all above 1,500,000 TSh. Per capita expenses were lowest (275,779 TSh) for the smaller CA farm type and highest (347,139 TSh) for the three market-oriented non-CA farmers, in concordance with their greater wealth. For both the CA and the non-CA farm types the expenses raised with an increase of crop diversification and farm size. On the other hand, per capita consumption of on- farm produced food was higher for the CA farm types than for the corresponding non-CA farmers,

Families additionally rely on off-farm income to sustain their households. While a few farmers indicated revenues from temporary work on neighbouring farms, the bigger contribution to the household economy came from private or public employment opportunities, often in nearby Karatu town, such as the tourism sector, brick factories and also government pensions. Off-farm income was most important for the non- CA farm type 1 growing only maize and legumes (889,375 TSh). These farmers also obtained the lowest crop and overall farm gross margin, and in fact their off-farm revenues even surpassed the net agricultural income of 814,010 TSh. For both CA and non-CA farmers, the proportion between off-farm and net agricultural income decreased with a larger farm size and crop diversification. For the CA farm type 2 the ratio was only of 8.3%, depicting the lesser significance of external livelihood sources in relation to the income generated in situ on the farm.

)49'61=T'2131874' Interestingly, it is this same farm type together with the non-CA type 3 that obtained a positive net farm balance, in contrast to the remaining farm types. Still, besides being of comparable farm size of 5 acres, the economic dimensions are entirely unequal, with the first one achieving a mere 52,338 TSh and the latter one 4,130,167 TSh. This only reflects the variety of farm strategies and realities in Karatu.

41 For the smaller CA farm type 1, not even the additional off-farm income (426,500 TSh) equivalent to 38.6% of the net agricultural income could prevent the negative net farm balance of -691,906 TSh. What did make a difference though was that these CA farmers had access to an average amount of 583,544 TSh as credits from either their FFS groups, village banks or microcredits. With this, the final farm balance still remained negative but could be reduced to -108,062 TSh. In the case of the non-CA farm types 1 and 2 credits counted much less and did not have a significant impact on their equally negative final farm balance of -515,309 and -277,119 TSh. Yet, it remains important to recall that 2011 has been a very dry year, partly explaining the negative balances for some farm types due to limited productivity and harvest caused by the lack of rainfall.

JAJ

Soil erosion and land degradation are two of the main environmental concerns in Karatu district. The on- going cultivation has led to soil compaction and nutrient mining. Burning crop residues and free grazing on the fields are common practices that leave the soils bare and very susceptible to wind and water erosion.

Soil and water conservation measures promoted by extension and research offices and NGO’s include contour cultivation and bunds, planting grass or trees along the borders of the fields, agroforestry and legume intercropping (Ringo et al., 2007; Owenya et al., 2012).

R@G?=4';`A'-=5:@58'6419?=4:'@8'(1=19?'>@:9=@79_'21>318>:'18>'G?33H'65=T19@58K'

Land management is a crucial factor influencing the vulnerability of the soils to erosive and degrading processes. Just after one of the first major precipitation events of the beginning short rainy season, a visual erosion assessment along a slope in Rhotia village highlighted the distinctive rainfall impact on fields under different cultivation methods (field visit on November 17th, 2011).

0!")0%*%$@!D6E6!F%$$1!23..>! ! 42 The top of the erosion-topo-sequence was occupied by the homestead, on an even level and surrounded by sisal plants. Further below the gradient changed towards a steeper downslope where the cultivated area began. Along the slope three different plots were located starting from the top:

• a non-CA plot (3/4 acre) recently ploughed four days earlier as land preparation to plant beans, separated from the below situated fields by a small terrace planted with kikuyu grass • one acre of CA of maize and pigeon pea, plus a few sunflowers and pumpkins • one acre of CA maize and lablab

The maize had been harvested and the dry weather conditions had made the cover crops fail and dry out with very little biomass, so the soil on the CA plots was far from being densely covered and protected (estimated cover of 30-40%). Nonetheless, the rainfall event had left visible traces on the bare, ploughed non-CA field whereas the erosion features were much less noticeable on the even slightly more inclined CA plots. Given the lack of time it was not possible to estimate a reliable quantity of soil loss or area of actual damage as proposed by the ACED method (Herweg, 1996). The non-CA plot was marked by uncountable irregular rills along the slope of which only the two biggest ones were measured in their width, depth and length: 0.3 x 0.1 x 6 m and 0.2 x 0.2 x 6 m approximately. The crop residues decreased the observability on the CA fields but the visible rills were less, much shallower and had estimated dimensions in the range of 0.06 x 0.03 x 1.5 m.

Without taking into account the dynamic processes of run-on and run-off nor sheet erosion or soil gain by deposition along the slope, this very simple observation of concentrated erosion features however sustained the assumption that Conservation Agriculture could contribute to a better soil protection against erosive hazards. Despite their for CA criteria (Box 1) relatively low vegetative cover, the CA fields showed fewer incisions and areas were soil had visibly been lost. Even though soil erosion and conservation did not seem to be the main associations that farmers had when asked about the effects of CA (see 4.1.4), the more direct question whether they had noticed an impact of CA on erosion and land degradation was positively affirmed by 16 out of the 24 interviewed farmers. This was related to the protective cover of the legume intercrops and a generally observed better soil structure and resilience against damage.

K .@:7?::@58'

The aim of this research has been to study the current status of adoption and impact of CA in Karatu district on the field and farm level, when compared to conventional farming practices. After a few remarks on the proceeded methodology, the following paragraphs will discuss the results in the context of the overarching question whether and under which conditions CA can play a significant role in improving smallholder farming in Africa.

KA; %463479@58'58'9D4'T49D5>535GH'

The results of this research are to be taken with precaution since they only offer a limited insight into the complex reality of CA practice in Karatu. For a more representative analysis, data gathered over a longer period of time and more cropping seasons as well as a larger sample size would have been desirable, given the elevated number of factors that influence both the quantitative and qualitative impacts of CA on the field and farm-scale. For instance the classification in CA farmers applying the three principles and 43 those who in 2011 had practiced (exceptional) ploughing was considered necessary, but the small sample size did not allow for a more precise comparison of e.g. years since CA implementation, additional soil and water conservation measures on the plots, etc. Furthermore, farmers and extension officers classified 2011 as dry and difficult year, meaning that the results presented here stand for a very specific climatic situation.

Moreover, the data retrieval relied exclusively on the information shared by the farmers during the survey process. Data quality might have been subject to a lack of confidence in the interviewing person, a white female stranger, in addition to language barriers and implicated possibilities of misunderstandings with a total of four different translators assisting during the interviews. Farmers seemed to be very confident about the field-level data concerning crop inputs and outputs. On the other hand, estimating livestock, general farm and family income and expenses for the period of the whole year caused considerable difficulties. It can furthermore be considered that in occasions, the question regarding the household’s off-farm income was potentially not completely understood nor answered with total sincerity. These last figures should therefore be treated with due caution.

With respect to the data analysis, Olympe can be regarded as a useful tool for overall farm-scale evaluation and comparison. Yet contrasting the results for the CA and non-CA fields required an additional effort and some unhandy out-of-the-box data entry and analysis since the program was not built for this kind of operations. Managing the application was not free of bugs and time-consuming complications. In any case the usefulness of such an agronomic modelling tool would further show when analysing a larger data set and performing more complex calculations and scenario building. Nonetheless it was considered a helpful tool for this case study’s data analysis.

KAC <:'&!'T5=4'=4:5?=74^466@7@489W'Q=5>?79@N4'18>'Q=56@91234'65=':T133^:7134' 61=T4=:'@8'(1=19?Z'

.@664=489'7=5Q'@8Q?9':9=194G@4:' As presented earlier, CA is said to be a both resource-saving and productivity-boosting technology. However, CA is being adopted in very diverse farming systems around the world and practiced by farmers of the most heterogeneous characteristics. For the tropical and temperate agro-ecological zones in developing countries, the experiences might differ between large mechanized commercial farms like the CA success stories in Latin America and smallholder farmers like the ones studied in this research. In general terms, the latter ones often lack the financial power to purchase fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides and thus tend to rely much less on external crop inputs. Meaning that the impact of CA for more subsistence-oriented farmers will be different in terms of savings related to inorganic inputs and labour (FAO, 2001b; Giller et al., 2009).

Indeed, the overall production costs for CA were lower than for the comparable non-CA maize and legume fields. Yet this difference was mainly due to reduced costs for external labour – given the experimental character, farmers would rather employ own family labour on their CA fields than hired workers (same as observed by Saavedra, 2012, in Kenya). As a matter of fact, the results of this research revealed that farmers in Karatu spent significantly more money on fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides (+25.8%) for their CA-plots than for the conventionally cultivated fields. This might be explained by the fact that farmers learn about nutrient, pest and weed management in the FFS, including available products for purchase on the market and in the agro-shops in town. Yet since farmers were complaining

44 about the high prices for these external inputs, it seemed that they were concentrating their use on the mostly still experimental CA fields.

It is beyond the scope of this research to discuss the role of external inputs for African small-scale farmers in detail. Nonetheless, the use of agrochemicals is an important issue when considering the promotion and adoption of CA technologies in the context of a predominantly subsistence and low external input agriculture. The FAO as (major) CA promoter on a worldwide level considers the use of synthetic herbicides and mineral fertilizers “inevitable” at least during the first years of CA practice (FAO, 2012). In the case of large-scale commercial farms such as in the CA success stories from the US and Latin America, CA seems indeed to have reduced the use of inorganic fertilizers and herbicides of former heavily input-dependent farmers (Derpsch et al., 2010).

But what when CA is introduced as a package including the use of those synthetic products in a traditionally low input farming system? It can be argued that CA in Karatu did not necessarily mean a reduction in external inputs (Stewart, 2011). The CA-SARD project equipped their FFS with a bottle of glyphosate herbicide (interview with Mrs Baida, DALDO Karatu, Box 3; Owenya et al., 2011). This research in Karatu showed that herbicide was only applied on the CA plots and the big majority of farmers affirmed that they had started using herbicides after being introduced to them in the FFS. Saavedra (2012) observed in his CA2AFRICA case study in Kenya that herbicide use was considered a core part of CA, and advertised as such by multinational chemical companies. In Karatu, both CA and non-CA farmers complained about the high costs for the products available in the agro-shops. In times of increasing prices e.g. for mineral fertilizers (UN 2010; The Montpellier Panel, 2013), doesn’t lead the promotion of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides to a higher market dependency of smallholders, instead of strengthening the resilience of their farms? Not to mention the possible impact on ecosystems and human health, two topics too broad and controversial to be further discussed here.

Gowing & Palmer (2008) sustain that successful CA adoption by smallholder farmers is closely linked to the access to fertilizers and herbicides and that low external input technologies cannot ensure the urgently needed raise in productivity and food security for sub-Saharan Africa. The same idea is shared by The Montpellier Panel (2013) in their publication on the new paradigm of sustainable intensification for African farmers. On the other hand, in their 2010 Special Report on the right to food (UN, 2010) the United Nations presented agro-ecology and low external input agriculture as pathways to more sustainable and productive farming systems in developing countries. It is true that CA is in any case promoted as a heavily on inputs reliant agriculture, on the contrary. Still farmers should be informed about alternatives to mineral fertilizers and herbicides (Steiner & Twomlow, 2003), and cases as the one of Mwangaza FFS in Karatu show that CA is well possible without them (Owenya et al., 2011).

$D4'@TQ179'58'3125?='' As for the lower labour expenses on the CA fields in Karatu, they did not necessarily correspond to a decreased overall labour requirement under CA. On the contrary, the farmers invested more time on their CA fields. As explained earlier, land preparation took more time on the CA fields – against the commonly mentioned statement that Conservation Agriculture is specifically labour-decreasing during the land preparation as well as for weeding (FAO, 2001b). Comparing different tractor, hand hoe and ripper-based land management strategies, Bishop-Sambrook et al. (2004) reported annual labour reductions of up to 75% for CA fields in the districts of Babati and Karatu. For a different case study in Bungoma, Western Kenya within the same CA2AFRICA project and also for the cropping season 2010/11, Saavedra (2012) found an overall labour reduction of 60% for the maize and beans CA plots when compared to the non- CA fields. The results of this research in Karatu are not in line with these findings, most probably because only half of the interviewed CA farmers used herbicide and land preparation was determined by manual cleaning, ripping and in some cases even conventional ploughing, due to the dry conditions. Instead, the

45 results indicate indeed that weeding requirements could be lowered with CA, whereas the workload for planting and harvesting increased with the higher crop diversity on the CA plots. Covering the bare soil by intercropping e.g. lablab in between the rows of maize limited weed growth, while the time spent for harvesting augmented due to the simple fact that more food was growing on the same field.

Interestingly, the difference in labour input for CA and non-CA was only mentioned as advantage by a third of the farmers when enquired about their experiences with CA, whereas a few farmers also stressed the increased labour and monetary input for CA. The three main benefits repeatedly mentioned by the CA farmers were increased yields, better soil fertility and improved water infiltration and storage in the soil. This indicates that the majority of farmers identified the improved productivity and health of their land as the principal advantage of CA - and not so much the reduction of labour or the decrease in costs for land preparation, fertilization and weeding. Giller et al. (2009) pointed out that without the use of herbicides, as is the case for most smallholder farmers, CA can even result in higher labour requirements, at least during the first years.

<87=41:4>'7=5Q'Q=5>?79@N@9H'['Q=56@912@3@9H' CA as a more productive system: For the same season 2011 in Kenya and intercropped with beans, Saavedra (2012) observed a higher maize yield of 9% and 67% for the long and short season respectively, in comparison with non-CA fields. Another comparative study in Kenya reported twice as much harvest on the CA fields, from 8 to 16 bags (FAO, 2009). Stewart (2011) mentioned one farmer obtaining 15 bags of maize on his 1-acre CA plot in Karatu (this study: average 10-11 bags/acre in 2011), additionally to the pigeon pea and lablab harvest. Ngwira et al. (2012) observed a relative yield reduction for maize in drier years when intercropped with legumes in Malawi. Similar observations were made by Baudron et al. (2012) in Zimbabwe.

This was not the case for the farmers in Karatu studied in this research who in 2011 obtained 67% more maize on the CA fields intercropped with legumes, compared to the conventional plots. Quite the reverse, the CA fields seemed to be more resilient to the lack of rainfall as the conventional plots experienced a much higher percentage of legume crop failure. This buffering effect suggests the potential of CA as appropriate technology in times of climate change (Stewart, 2011; Penot et al., 2012).

Both in field and farm level comparison, the higher production of CA was found to result in significantly increased gross margins under Conservation Agriculture as compared to the conventionally cultivated plots in Karatu. This study in Karatu observed an increase of +121.8% in crop gross margin for the intercropped CA maize and legume fields. This is in line with the results observed by Ngwira et al. (2012) in Malawi, whose comparative on-farm trials over three years showed the increased profitability of CA production. They concluded that in spite of greater material input costs for herbicides and fertilizers, the better yields of the CA plots resulted in higher overall gross margins. CA production required less work and brought a higher return to labour. The authors point out that diversifying and introducing nitrogen- fixing plants also brought higher returns to the farmers: the gross margin for CA maize intercropped with pigeon pea was more than twice as high as for conventional maize only (+104.9%).

Regarding the importance of Conservation Agriculture at farm-scale, the CA farmers achieved significantly better results on their fields under CA than on the ones cultivated conventionally, which where comparable to the non-CA farmers’ maize and legume production. In general, crop diversification led to higher gross margins and household income generation. Yet it was found that Conservation Agriculture techniques had a particular impact on increasing the overall farm gross margin for smaller farms that did not grow any additional crops. The interviewed CA farmers mentioned especially the improved soil conditions and subsequent higher yields as main benefits of CA, leading to a better livelihood situation

46 and food security for their households (as also described by Ringo et al., 2007; Stewart, 2011; Owenya et al., 2012).

Yet the mostly negative overall farm balances evoke the question how the farmers in Karatu can survive. The results clearly show the difficult situation for small-scale farming. Nevertheless, as stated before, according to the farmers and extension workers the cropping season 2011 was characterized by irregular rainfall and drought, causing a particularly bad year in terms of crop yields. Furthermore, uncertainties in the obtained answers during the survey process suggest considering the results for the livestock, farm and household revenues and expenses as indicative. In general terms the results from this case study research in Karatu district suggest that CA can provide a series of benefits to smallholders.

KAF &18'&!'=4N4=:4'318>'>4G=1>19@58'18>'4=5:@58Z''

Conservation Agriculture is promoted as a land management strategy to effectively control soil and fertility loss (Steiner, 1998; Fowler & Rockstrom, 2001; Gowing & Palmer, 2008; Derpsch et al., 2010; Kassam et al., 2010; FAO, 2012). The African continent suffers an estimated annual decrease of 3% in agricultural production due to soil erosion and land degradation (FAO, 2009). Case studies in Karatu found that CA contributed to decrease erosion and improve nutrient status of the soils (Ringo et al., 2007; Owenya et al., 2012)

The farmers interviewed in this survey highlighted the protective function of the cover crops and the improved soil conditions in terms of water holding capacity and increased fertility. Ripping the soils prior to planting was considered as very effective for breaking subsurface hardpans caused by continuous cultivation. They reported that the beneficial effects of improving root penetration and water infiltration were often an immediate increase in yields. Farmers also mentioned the deep pigeon pea roots and their effect on improving soil structure, whereas lablab was appreciated for its ability to densely cover the soil – at least in years with sufficient rainfall and biomass production. The visual erosion assessment revealed the potential of CA to maintain soil resources. Saavedra (2012) made similar observations using the ACED method in Kenya.

Yet there have been experiences that indicate that CA is not always the most appropriate land management strategy in semi-arid climates. In Zimbabwe, Baudron et al. (2012) found that with insufficient soil cover CA could cause soil compaction and surface crusting instead of leading to a better water storage in the soil. Same as in Karatu, farmers in these cases considered ploughing the soil necessary to retain water in drier years. Giller et al. (2009) discuss a series of contradicting studies regarding the impact of CA on soil fertility, erosion and productivity. The authors point out that the complexity of factors influencing these aspects is rarely reflected in the comparisons between CA and other cultivation methods. They criticise the lack of experimental trials which clearly segregate the single factors such as tillage operation, soil cover, fertilizer application etc. When CA is promoted as a package of simultaneous principles, the comparison with conventional cropping methods is often made under unequal conditions which make it very hard, of not impossible, to determine which factors specifically cause the claimed benefits.

Despite these remarks, the farmers in Karatu who practiced CA in either way or another, including soil cover difficulties in drier years and seasonal adaptations such as occasional tillage, were in general agreeing on the fact that CA had the potential to improve soil water and nutrient conditions and reverse land degradation caused by wind and water erosion.

47 KAJ M=5:Q479:'56'&!'1>5Q9@58'@8'(1=19?' ' ' The area of cropland under Conservation Agriculture is increasing worldwide (Friedrich et al., 2012), but can CA also become widely practiced in sub-Saharan Africa?

The previous chapters have shown that in spite of a shift in labour requirements and higher input expenses, CA led to an increased crop and labour productivity and profitability for smallholders in Karatu. Yet the adoption process of the new technology is taking place in a stepwise and partial manner. Stepwise, because the majority of the CA-classified farmers were not practicing Conservation Agriculture on the whole of their land but started with a small experimental plot and successively increased, or wished to do so, the area once the benefits of CA had shown and possible drawbacks had been overcome. Partial, because as discussed above the reality of the farmers in Karatu did not always fulfil all of the three CA principles as stipulated by FAO.

Hardly any farmer followed a crop rotation scheme, but intercropping maize and legumes was a common practice not only for CA trained farmers. Keeping the soil permanently covered was a major difficulty due to low biomass production in semi-arid regions as well as free-range grazing, two hindering factors widely discussed with regard to up-scaling of CA adoption in Africa (Steiner, 1998; FAO, 2009; Giller et al. 2009). The same problematic exists in Karatu (Ringo et al. 2007; Owenya et al., 2012) as affirmed by the farmers’ and extension officers’ opinions about CA retrieved in this study.

R@G?=4'CLA'M=4^%4X?@:@94:'65='1>5Q9@58'56'&58:4=N19@58'!G=@7?39?=4' O"@:D5Q^#1T2=55V'#$"%&'W'CLLJW'1>1Q94>'6=5T'#94@84=W';``BP'

Partial adoption of soil and water conservation measures such as CA and their adaptation to the local context seems to be a common characteristic of smallholder farming (de Graaff et al., 2008; Gowing & Palmer, 2008; Giller et al. 2009). CA is promoted as a package of three simultaneous conditions, yet little research has been done to determine the impact of each one of those principles (Giller et al. 2009). For instance in this case study (always with the limitation of analysing one single cropping season), it was found that within the CA farmers there was no significant difference in terms of crop productivity and profitability between the no-till fields and those where farmers had ploughed the soil.

Likewise, “punctual opportunistic tillage” as common practice against soil compaction and weeds has been observed in CA systems in Madagascar (Penot et al. (2012) and Zimbabwe (Baudron et al., 2012). In Karatu, farmers and extension officers stated that especially in dry years ploughing was needed to increase rainwater infiltration in the soil. CA in other than the optimal agro-ecological conditions (Figure 20) faces determined challenges. Already back in 1998, Steiner suggested minimum instead of no-tillage as second-best practice for CA adoption in semi-arid Africa. Baudron et al. (2012) found that general farm management, i.e. timely planting and weeding, had more influence on crop productivity than the

48 different growing methods of CA vs. conventional agriculture. Again, understanding the contribution of the variety of separate factors to the claimed CA success is very complex (Giller et al., 2009), yet in some parts of Africa the promotion of CA is gaining almost dogmatic and faith-based aspects (Andersson & Giller, 2012).

However the theory of agricultural research might differ from the reality on the field and the farmers’ practices, and even their ways of understanding. During this research it was found that in occasions even the farmers from the FFS did not have such a clear conceptual separation of CA from other conservation measures. Meaning that sometimes they e.g. included erosion control through contour cultivation or planting trees and sisal on the edges of their fields into the concept of “kilimo uhifadhi” (“conservation agriculture”, but also understood in general as “sustainable farming”). This is coherent since for them more than a new theoretical paradigm they consider their farm as a holistic system, including all aspects of good land management. Indeed, understanding this different view was a challenge in the beginning and required some clarification during the survey process in order to get the specifically CA relevant information.

CA adoption in Karatu is thus not a static procedure, and can be classified as a flexible process including stepwise and periodic adoption (Figure 3). The communal learning process in the FFS provides an encouraging starting point for farmers to get to know and experiment with the new CA technology. Unlike the argument that CA systems require a certain time to develop their full potential (Shetto & Owenya, 2007; Giller et al., 2009; FAO, 2012; Penot et al., 2012), the farmers interviewed in this survey sustained that benefits such as increased soil fertility and higher yields were recognisable in the first years of CA practice.

The observability, triability and adaptability of CA practices have been identified as supporting factors for adoption in Karatu, whereas further improvement is needed regarding the availability of CA knowledge, networks and equipment as well as issues concerning costs and labour (CA2AFRICA, 2011). Contrary to some of the aspects presented in Figure 21 though, this present study found that there was a lack of crop residues to ensure full soil cover. Free-range grazing was mentioned as one of the prevailing factors colliding with a successful CA adoption. Conflicts over the competitive use of crop residues as animal fodder are possible (Owenya et al., 2012). Some farmers in Karatu also mentioned that their innovative practices were looked at with mistrust by their neighbours and it was sometimes more difficult for them to rent oxen for e.g. ripping. Modifying the traditional way of farming not only requires a change of mind-sets for the individual farmer but also might have an impact on his or her social context.

R@G?=4'C;A'#?QQ5=9@8G'OgP'18>'D@8>4=@8G'O^P'61795=:'95'&!'1>5Q9@58' 65='9U5'71:4':9?>@4:'@8'(48H1'18>'$18]18@1'O&!C!R%<&!W'CL;;P' 49

All these aspects may not occur when testing CA on experimental plots but can appear when CA is introduced into an existing farming system. To critically assess the overall agricultural context also from the regional perspective is thus crucial before promoting CA (Giller et al., 2009; Corbeels et al., 2011). Another issue expressed by some farmers that goes beyond the measurable performance of CA on the field-scale is the insufficient access to cover crop seeds as well as the linkage of their products to the local markets (Owenya et al., 2012).

Then how could further adoption of CA in Karatu be encouraged? Continuing the participative training of farmers in the FFS seems like an effective and empowering way to stimulate the progressive adoption of CA. Farmers should be introduced to a variety of options to adopt and adapt CA on their own fields. Main issues penalising the benefits of CA such as competitive uses of crop residues and conflicts with free- grazing animals remain.

Furthermore, the motivation and commitment of farmers towards CA depends on the availability of specialised equipment, tools, cropping inputs and the possibility to find a market for their products, e.g. newly introduced legume crops such as lablab and mucuna. These aspects go beyond the individual farm level and should be addressed by the corresponding institutions in order to enhance the spread of CA in the district (Bishop-Sambrook et al., 2004; Ringo et al. 2007; Owenya et al., 2012).

I &5873?:@58:'

Conservation Agriculture has been introduced in Karatu district by inviting farmers to apply and experiment with the new cultivation method on group plots in Farmer Field Schools. Intrigued by the noticeable increase in yields with less labour as well as observing the beneficial effects on the soil, farmers started to apply CA on their own fields. Yet the context of a real farm differs in certain aspects from the conditions on a communal experimentation plot. Often mentioned issues with CA involved the lack of access to specialised CA equipment such as ripper or direct planter, and the difficulty to maintain the soil cover due to free-grazing livestock. The main observed benefits were an increase in soil fertility and water holding capacity, resulting in higher productivity. Comparing maize-legume intercropping on CA-adopting and conventional farms for the season 2011, CA resulted in almost twice as high maize yields as well as increased gross margins.

The question regarding the labour requirements was not so conclusive: some farmers argued that CA was saving labour, while others considered it a more labour-intensive practice. The results from the survey sustain that CA in this specific dry year could save labour for weeding, but was more time- consuming for the rest of the activities. This can partly be explained by increased crop diversification on the CA fields, meaning that growing and harvesting different crops required an additional labour effort. Despite higher input costs in terms of synthetic inputs such as herbicide, pesticide and fertilizers, the increased production of the CA fields had the effect of higher gross margins and return to labour.

Nonetheless, comparing on-farm plots is difficult since the plots don’t necessarily have the same base conditions, e.g. farmers would rather concentrate fertilizer use on the CA plots or work on their CA fields with their families whereas external workers were more common on the conventional fields. Still they reflect the challenges of making a new technology fit into an existing farming system.

50

The three CA principles can embrace a wide variety of practices and can be adapted to the local context. CA adoption is taking place step by step on the farms, as the majority of farmers first want to try it out on smaller portions of their land. But the conversion to CA not only requires a change of mind-sets regarding the question how to sustainably manage the land. In occasions, farmers might go back to ploughing in response to dry weather conditions or to prevent free grazing on their fields. CA adoption and adaptation are thus flexible and on-going processes, and further research is needed to understand the impact of each of the three CA principles on the overall results of production and profitability. Erosion did not appear to be the most urgent concern for neither CA nor conventional farmers. Yet, many of them agreed that CA did have a favourable impact on soil and water conservation. CA also seemed to reinforce the soils’ resilience to climate stress such as during the dry year 2011.

From a farm perspective, with sufficient labour available converting to CA in Karatu could be of particular interest for smaller farmers who don’t rely on additional value crops apart from staple maize and legumes. Stakeholders promoting further CA adoption in Karatu should address the issues of access to CA implements, free-range grazing and market linkage for new leguminous cover crops.

From an overall perspective, even if not always adopted 100% following the official CA principles, Conservation Agriculture carries the potential to make smallholder farming in Karatu more productive and profitable while at the same time reversing processes of land degradation: ”kilimo uhifadhi”.

51 %464=4874:'

ACT (2009): CA-SARD. http://www.act-africa.org/ca-sard.html (accessed 4.4.2011)

ANDERSSON, J. & GILLER, K. (2012): On heretics and God’s blanket salesmen: contested claims for Conservation Agriculture and the politics of its promotion in African smallholder farming. In: SUMBERG, J. & THOMPSON, J. (eds.): Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World. Earthscan, London

BAUDRON, F., TITTONELL, P., CORBEELS, M., LETOURMEY, P. & GILLER, K. (2012): Comparative performance of conservation agriculture and current smallholder farming practices in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Field Crops Research, 132: 117-128.

BISHOP-SAMBROOK, C., KIENZLE, J., MARIKI, W., OWENYA, M. & RIBEIRO, F. (2004): Conservation Agriculture as a Labour Saving Practice for Vulnerable Households. A Study of the Suitability of Reduced Tillage and Cover Crops for Households under Labour Stress in Babati and Karatu Districts, Northern Tanzania. IFAD, FAO, 73 p.

CA-SARD: http://www.fao.org/sard/en/sard/754/2322/2317/index.html (accessed 20.3.2011)

CA2AFRICA (2011): Newsletter nº 2, November 2011

CA2AFRICA (2012): http://ca2africa.cirad.fr/ (last accessed on 20.7.2013)

CORBEELS, M., APINA, T., KOALA, S., SCHULER, J., TRIOMPHE, B., EL MOURID, M., TRAORE, K., NYAGUMBO, I., MRABET, R., PENOT, E., GOMEZ-MACPHERSON, H., DE GRAAFF, J. & TITTONELL, P. (2011): Impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: a multi-scale and multi-stakeholder analysis. Presented at the 5th World Congress of Conservation Agriculture, September 2011 in Brisbane, Australia.

DE GRAAFF, J., AMSALU, A., BODNÁR, F., KESSLER, A., POSTHUMUS, D. & TENGE, A. (2008): Factors influencing adoption and continued use of long-term soil and water conservation measures in five developing countries. Applied Geography, 28: 271-280.

DEHEUVELS, O. (2008): Olympe. A tool for economical and technical modelling of a farm or group of farms. http://www.olympe-project.net/en/content/download/1668/9812/file/ Approach_&_functioning_Deheuvels.pps (accessed 6.4.2011)

DERPSCH, R., FRIEDRICH, T., KASSAM, A. & HONGWEN, L. (2010): Current status of no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 3(1): 1-25.

FRIEDRICH, T. & KASSAM, A. (2009): Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Technologies: Constraints and Opportunities. Paper presented at the 4th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, New Delhi, February 2009.

52 FRIEDRICH, T., DERPSCH, R. & KASSAM, A. (2012): Overview of the Global Spread of Conservation Agriculture. Facts Reports, Special Issue 6

FAO (2001a): Conservation Agriculture. Case studies in Latin America and Africa. FAO Soils Bulletin 78, Rome, 69 p.

FAO (2001b): The economics of conservation agriculture. Rome, 66 p.

FAO (2009): Scaling-up Conservation Agriculture in Africa: Strategy and Approaches. The FAO Subregional Office For Eastern Africa, Addis Ababa, 35 p.

FAO (2011): Save and grow. A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production. Rome, 112 p.

FAO (2012): Conservation Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/ (last accessed on 26.7.2013)

FAO & ACT (2009): CA-SARD Electronic Booklet. http://www.act-africa.org/publication/casard_booklet.pdf (accessed on 4.4.2011)

FOWLER, R. & ROCKSTROM, J. (2001): Conservation tillage for sustainable agriculture. An agrarian revolution gathers momentum in Africa. Soil & Tillage Research, 61(1-2): 93-107.

GILLER, K., WITTER, E., CORBEELS, M. & TITTONELL, P. (2009): Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops Research, 114: 23-34.

GOWING, J.W. & PALMER, M (2008): Sustainable agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa: the case for a paradigm shift in land husbandry. Soil Use and Management, 24(1): 92-99.

HERWEG, K. (1996): Field Manual for Assessment of Current Erosion Damage. Soil Conservation Research Programme, Addis Abeba & Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), Bern, 69 p.

HOBBS, P.R. (2007): Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? Journal of Agricultural Science, 145(2): 127-137.

HOBBS, P.R. (2009): International Conservation Agriculture. Discussion on paper from GILLER et al. (2009). http://conservationag.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/ken-gillers-paper-on-conservation-agriculture/ (accessed on 18.3.2011)

HUGGINS, D.R. & REGANOLD, J.P. (2008): No-Till: the Quiet Revolution. Scientific American, Inc., July 2008: 70-77.

IFAD (2010): Rural Poverty Report 2011. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, 317 p.

KASSAM, A., FRIEDRICH, T. & DERPSCH, R. (2010): Conservation Agriculture in the 21st Century: A Paradigm for Sustainable Agriculture. Paper presented at the European Congress on Conservation Agriculture, Madrid, October 2010. http://www.sw-websolutions.co.uk/taa/assets/pubs/Paper5%20CA_Madrid_final%5B1%5D.pdf

LAL, R. (2007): Constraints to adopting no-till farming in developing countries. Soil & Tillage Research, 94: 1-3.

53 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2013): 2012 Housing and Population Census. 244 p.

NGWIRA, A., AUNE, J. & MKWINDA, S. (2012): On-farm evaluation of yield and economic benefit of short term maize legume intercropping systems under conservation agriculture in Malawi. Field Crops Research, 132: 149-157.

OWENYA, M., MARIKI, W., KIENZLE, J., FRIEDRICH, T. & KASSAM, A. (2011): Conservation agriculture (CA) in Tanzania: The case of the Mwangaza B CA farmer field school (FFS), Rhotia village, Karatu district, Arusha. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1): 145-152.

OWENYA, M., MARIKI, W., STEWART, A., FRIEDRICH, T., KIENZLE, J., KASSAM, A., SHETTO, R. & MKOMWA, S. (2012): Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Crop Intensification in Karatu District, Tanzania. Integrated Crop Management,15.

PANNELL, D.J., MARSHALL, G. R., BARR, N., CURTIS, A., VANCLAYAND, F. & WILKINSON, R. (2006): Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation agriculture by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46: 1407-1424.

PENOT, E. (2010): Socio-economic diagnosis of a small region using an economic farming system modeling tool (Olympe). An approach from household to landscape scales to assist decision making processes for development projects supporting conservation agriculture in Madagascar. In: AZEVEDO, J.C., FELICIANO, M., CASTRO, J. & PINTO, M.A. (eds.): Forest Landscapes and Global Change - New Frontiers in Management, Conservation and Restoration. Proceedings of the IUFRO Landscape Ecology Working Group International Conference, September 2010, Bragança, Portugal.

PENOT, E., HUSSON, O. & RAKOTONDRAMANANA (2010): Les bases des calculs économiques pour l’évaluation des systèmes SCV. Manuel pratique du semis direct à Madagascar. Annexe 2.

PENOT, E., MACDOWAN, C., POLETTI, S. & DOMAS, S. (2012): Modeling Impact of Conservation Agriculture adoption of on farming systems agricultural income. The case of Lake Alaotra Region, Madagascar. Paper presented at the IFSA Symposium, July 2012, Aarhus, Denmark.

RINGO, D., MAGUZU, C., MARIKI, W., OWENYA, M., NJUMBO & SWAI, F. (2007): Karatu District. In: SHETTO, R. & OWENYA, M. (eds.): Conservation agriculture as practised in Tanzania: three case studies. ACT, CIRAD, FAO, Nairobi, 159 p.

ROGERS, E.M. (2003): Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York, 576 p.

SAAVEDRA, Y. (2012): Assessment of Conservation Agriculture (CA) practices in Bungoma, Western Kenya: Towards an insight in CA adoption and its constraints. MSc thesis, Wageningen University

SHETTO, R. & OWENYA, M. (eds., 2007): Conservation agriculture as practised in Tanzania: three case studies. ACT, CIRAD, FAO, Nairobi, 159 p.

STEINER, K. (1998): Conserving Natural Resources and Enhancing Food Security by Adopting No- Tillage. An Assessment of the Potential for Soil-conserving Production Systems in Various Agro- Ecological Zones of Africa. Tropical Ecology Support Program, GTZ GmbH, Eschborn, 53 p.

STEINER, K. & TWOMLOW, S. (2003): Weed management in Conservation Tillage Systems. ACT, African Conservation Tillage Network Information Series nº 8

54 STEWART, A. (2011): What are the impacts of Conservation Agriculture on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Arusha region, Tanzania? MSc Thesis, University of Reading

THE MONTPELLIER PANEL (2013): Sustainable Intensification. A New Paradigm for African Agriculture. Agriculture for Impact, Imperial College London, 36 p.

UN (2010): Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutte. A/HRC/16/49 General Assembly, Human Rights Council, 16th Session, December 2010

UN-OHRLLS (2010): Basic Facts about LDC’s. http://www.unohrlls.org/UserFiles/File/Elle%20Wang%20Uploads/UN_LDC_Factsheet_061610.pdf (accessed 2.4.2011)

'

55 !

!

!

!

"##$%&'($)!

!""#$%&'(!( Mr Mzee Vitalis Basso’s document and transcript

TEAM WORK FORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The old technology ever employed by the grands but yet effective in Agricultural activities and minimizes the cost of production. It is a common Technology applied in majority. In this Technology the head of the family arranges food and drinks the groups to work on the farm on his expenses. When the work is over the group eat and drink together and then leave the place after making a prayer led by old men without being paid anything on extra. The only condition is to fully participate on day to day activities within the community. The Technology is been practised in many areas in Tanzania. The Technology also shortens the time to work on the farm and therefore minimizes the time cost. Although the Technology is loca and old but yet can be implemented in CA to fasten the extension of CA Technologies since through this gathering of individuals sharing of different ideas and adoption could easily take place and this could lead CA Technology towards success.

By V. Basso, 19.10.2011

!""#$%&'()( Farmers’ documents from the FFS, Kilimatembo village

Overview of the different CA treatments on the experimental group plots

CA as one of different land management strategies next to agroforestry, etc.

!""#$%&'()( Survey form

*$+,"-.,/&+0"((((((((((((((((" OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" " " " J G8*#*"#$+(#6+%K8%.)()*"#$+(L"/)+!,+ !"#$%&'()*"#+,-&*./0)/&%+*#+,123!,4++ " !"#$%&%'()$*$$ ,#(05$*#-+(#6+1"2%$%%*#-+*)$+378(.)+9+!"78&%:%#6*#-+*)$+,6"8)*"#+ 7+&"D2."3$,;<;$+"J;%4"%4&"@2-@&E%"23"A7")"82"D2."H-2J"-&;=4/2.+;-="3$+,&+6"J42"E+$@%;@&"A7" " 9,;-;,.,"62;<"8;6%.+/$-@&")"E&+,$-&-%"62;<"@2G&+")"@+2E"$662@;$%;2-6"$-8"+2%$%;2-6>"K""""""""" " " " "" 1L" 1,2;3<=+>?>@A;>+>B2CA?+3<+D,2,@BE+,2B>F,+2A=3G/&'%5+*6%#)*I*.()*"#+ " + 7+&"D2."@2-6;8&+;-="%2"$82E%"A7"D2.+6&<3"K"M4D")"J4D"-2%"K"" " " " " " " " " " "" "#$%&"''(()''')''''(" " + ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''" "*$+,"-.,/&+0"((((((((((((((((" " + $ 1$,&"23"%4&"&-.,&+$%2+0"((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((" $ " " !"#$()$*"M4D"8;8"D2."6%$+%"J;%4"A7"K"R$;-",2%;G$%;2-"K"M42";-3<.&-@&8"D2."K" *$+,&+56"-$,&0"((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((" " " ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''" 788+&660"((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((("9:;<<$=&>?""((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((("9;-"@$6&"A70"**B>" " " " " M4$%"$+&"%4&",$;-"$8G$-%$=&6"D2."2/6&+G&8"3+2,"A7"K"" " " CDE&"23"3$+,;-=F6D6%&,96>"9,$;-"@+2E6>""((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((?"'''''''''" " I-@+&$6&8"D;&<86"!4565%789:4%2;<7%===5%>86?@8A;4%B<%===%>86?@8A;41" " " " " """""""""" " S&66"<$/2.+F;-%&-6;G&" 9<;G&6%2@H>""''''''''?"''''''''(" " S&66"@26%6" " " " " #BC4;%3"" " " I-"@$6&"3$+,&+"E+$@%;@&6"A7"2-"4;6"2J-"<$-8?"42J",$-D"D&$+6"$=2"8;8"4&)64&"6%$+%K" ''''("D&$+6" ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''" " " L-"42J",$-D"E<2%6"82&6"4&)64&"E+$@%;@&"A7"-2JK""" " " " " ''''("E<2%6" ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''" " " " L-"42J",.@4"<$-8";-"%2%$"?8/"'05"<"" " " 88"4'49'(" :" !" 2" ;" <" =" >" ?" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@,,,,,,,," O*2$530'"50"E*$:"" ! " " " " " " " " P*':*%" ! " " " " " " " " .4*" ! " " " " " " " A9*%$22"013'30'>3&1%*7730'"0B";."<"C0"/0("B**2";."8$7"3&1%09*:"/0(%"B$&32/D7"239*23800:"<""" K*$%7"0B"*:(6$530'" ! " " " " " " " " M5322"3'"768002" ! " " " " " " " @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@" @AABA,(4"%*7$4'" ! " " " " " " " " F$3'"$653935/"" ! " " " " " " " " H0":$/7"1*%"/*$%" ! " " " " " " " " L753&,"'*5"3'60&*">" ! " " " " " " " ! """#$%&"'($)%$*+"&,*-"-'.(,-,/%$*",*-"01" &0'58>/*$%"QM8" " " ! " " " " " " " " A58*%"$653935/"" ! " " " " " " " E0?"?0(2:"/0("62$773B/"/0(%"2$':<" H0":$/7"1*%"/*$%" " " " " " " " " " L753&,"'*5"3'60&*">" " " " " " " " " " #*%532*" &0'58>/*$%"QM8" " F0%*"0%"2*77"B*%532*" 0$-')C""""4)25-$(!;12,12+!-&5%<2!-4!)2+!<%&,1!%+!)2+!(2*+:!=($4,+->-&?!,1+%@?1!,12!%,12+!%),-%&/" " G'B*%532*">":*4%$:*:" ABBRB$%&"$6539353*7+"""" S"T"#$%&"2$)0(%,U"V"T"#0%*75%/"2$)0(%U"!"T"#3783'4" " " " " N"T"E$':36%$B5,U"W"T";0&&*%6*>"7801,U"X"T"Y':(75%/" " " " " Z"T"Q%$'710%5",U"["T"P09*%'&*'5U"\"T"]*'730'" =8$5"*%0730'"$':":*4%$:$530'"1%06*77*7"$%*"$BB*653'4"/0(%"2$':<" S^T@@@@@@@@@"U"SST@@@@@@@@,," " ! " =3':"*%0730'" R"]*%&$'*'5"?0%_*%7+" " =$5*%"*%0730'"" " " " H(5%3*'5"2077" E0?"&$'/"&*&)*%7"0B"58*"B$&32/"5$_*"1$%5"1*%&$'*'52/"3'"58*"B$%&`7"$6539353*7<""""@@," " ;0&1$65$530'">"8$%:"1$'" E0?"&$'/"1*%&$'*'5"?0%_*%7<" " @@@," " F0'582/"7$2$%/"0B"1*%&$'*'5"?0%_*%<" @@@,"" 0,12+!3!4)25-$(6! " " " @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@" R"M*$70'$2"?0%_*%7+" " " " C3:"/0("*&120/"7*$70'$2"?0%_*%7"09*%"58*"2$75"/*$%<""""""""" " "A1-4!-4!,%!=2!B2+-$-2.!=(!.2,*-'4!-&!425,-%&!C=D/" !"#$%&'"C0"/0("0)7*%9*"$"68$'4*"3'"*%0730'"I$':"2$':":*4%$:$530'J"1%06*77*7"73'6*"/0("75$%5*:"?358" " ;.<"" D$*/5" @" E" F" G" 3" D" 1" D" G" G" 1" #" " "" HA" F$':$/7" " " " " " " " " " " " " "" KLM"""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ;075" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " #$!789:!4)25-$(6""" " " " @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@" =8$5"8$7")**'"58*"&$3'"75%$5*4/"0B"58*"B$%&"80(7*802:<"@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@" " " @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@" =8$5"8$9*")**'"&$a0%"60'75%$3'57"3'"B$%&3'4")(73'*77<"@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@" " " "

!" N" #$%&"'(&)*%+",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," #$%&"'(&)*%+",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," ------" ------"

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`"*61,;B"" " " " TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT,,,,," " " !" W" #$%&"'(&)*%+",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," #$%&"'(&)*%+",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," ------" ------"

!"# $%&''()*#+),#-+"&.%#()'./0#'1%#01+0&)# !9# $%&''()*#+),#&./'./0#'1%#01+0&)# " " 231)# 89/(:(/;# <+%91-#=## >&?#-&)*# >&?#5+);# B+-+%;# <+%91-#).5"1%# I# J# K# L# !# 45&)/36#7# 9%&'# 4,+;0=3&.%06#7# '1&'-1#41@/A6#7# !"#$%&'()*%+,(&-./0-+#(".%$#(%*( " " " " " # C+),#'%1'+%+/(&)# " " " " 1!2( " E+()#'%&,.9/#8# " " " " " " ;&/('5"3$%=*65*>" " " " " " " ;&/('5"?/'6(&*>" " " " " " ./"01/(234'2"5(%'6" ;&/('5"6/1>" " " " " " " " " " " " @%4?*"" " " " " " " M;'%&,.9/#8## # # # # # " ;&/('5"3$%=*65*>" # # # # # 74004'2" @*%?,"9/1>" " " " " " # B11,()*='-+)/()*# " " " " @%4?*"" " " " " " # E+()#'%&,.9/#M## # # # # # # ;&/('5"3$%=*65*>" # # # # # " ;&/('5"?/'6(&*>" # # # # # " ;&/('5"6/1>" # # # # # """""""""""""""""""""""""" @%4?*"" " " " " " # 8''-;()*#5.-93# # # # # M;'%&,.9/#M# " " " " " # ;&/('5"3$%=*65*>" " " " " " # 211,()*"""""""""" " " " " @*%?,"9/1>" " " " " " " " @%4?*"" " " " " " " E+()#'%&,.9/#$# " " " " " ./"/8"54&*6"" ;&/('5"3$%=*65*>" " " " " " # D1%/(-(0+/(&)# # # # # ;&/('5"?/'6(&*>" " " " " " # ;&/('5"6/1>" " " " " " # E+).%()*# # # # # @%4?*"" " " " " " # M;'%&,.9/#$# " " " " " " 90%$:4'2#'10/(9(,10## # # # # ;&/('5"3$%=*65*>" " " " " " # @*%?,"9/1>" " " " " " " ;001:4'2# # # # # @%4?*"" " " " " " 31%"(9(,10# N&/+-#'%&,A#O+-.1#4NB306# " " " " " # # >+%:10/()*################ " " " " # " # " $%&''()*#9+-1),+%P#03&?#0/+%/#+),#H()(03#&H#401+0&)+-6#9%&'#9;9-10#'1%#9%&'" " $%&'# A$'" #*)" B$%" ;0%" B$:" A('" A(1" ;(2" 9*0" C?5" ./=" D*?" " ! " " " " " " " " " " " " " ! " " " " " " " " " " " " " ! " " " " " " " " " " " " # F)GH+%5# " " " " ! " " " " " " " " " " " " '%&9100()*"""""" ! " " " " " " " " " " " " " ! " " " " " " " " " " " " " ! " " " " " " " " " " " " " ! " " " " " " " " " " " " "" !" <" #$%&"'(&)*%+",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," #$%&"'(&)*%+",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," ------" ------" + ! "#$%&'()*+,-./+)0-.1%&+($%2+3-&'+4%-25+ + " 643%+ .%$/0" .$3%4" 5367" 89**:" ;<$07" =931>*'" ?09*%" 643%+ .%$/0" .$3%4" 5367" 89**:" ;<$07" =931>*'" ?09*%" FC6BC6D+ 1$002*" 1$002*" K" 1$002*" 1$002*" @A<'>*47B" <-.82%"(7*A"/<%"":%"7<2A"@$J,C" " " " " " " " H<,")<%'" " " " " " " " DJ,"O32>":%31*"%*1*3J*A"*!"#$+,-." " " " " " " " H<,"7*2/I1<'7(&*A" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " H<,"2<70" " " " " " " " H<," ?09*% <=6>?@="+@ABC6D+ 1$002*" 1$002*" *'" K" J E8#H/#.1&9+G-)0#.%249+%K8#3G%.'9+'((H&+-./+G%-.&+(:+:-2G+'2-.&3(2'+ H<"+"!"#$" " " " " " " " 643%+ 80$)2*M" F%$10<%" T3::*%M" 52<(69" O<0<%)3>*" U3>*" KKKK" =<70"+"!"#$" " " " " " " " + 89*A" " 7**A*%" =<70"J*0*%3'$%4"A%(67M4%+"!"#$" " " " " " " " H<," " " " " " " " ?09*%"1<707+KK,,""!"#$%&'(%))" " " " " " " " H<,"7<2A"0937"4*$%" " " " " " " " + " " " " " " " V9*'")(320"M" " " " " " " " "=EFC?+@ABC6D+ " " " " " " " )<(690"@4*$%CR" N*%A3'6"9<(%7":*%"G**>" " " " " " " " 5%31*" " " " " " " " #**A3'6"9<(%7":*%"G**>"" " " " " " " " @$J*%$6*CMJ$2(*" O32>3'6"9<(%7":*%"G**>"" " " " " " " " W*$%7"0<")*"(7*A" " " " " " " " H<"

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

!!"