Creating Capabilities for Sustainable Smallholder Agriculture F.J. Van

Creating capabilities for sustainable smallholder agriculture A systems perspective on innovation and the adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Kenya and Madagascar F.J. Van Hulst Ph.D. Thesis 2016 Creating capabilities for sustainable smallholder agriculture A systems perspective on innovation and the adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Kenya and Madagascar Freddy van Hulst A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Greenwich for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The research programme was carried out in collaboration with the ABACO project July 2016 i DECLARATION I certify that this work has not been accepted in substance for any degree, and is not concurrently being submitted for any degree other than that of Doctor of Philosophy being studied at the University of Greenwich. I also declare that this work is the result of my own investigations except where otherwise identified by references and that I have not plagiarised the work of others. PhD candidate F.J. van Hulst Date: Supervisor Prof. dr. J. Morton Date: Supervisor Dr. K. Wellard Date: ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Helena Posthumus, who initiated this PhD project, supervised me for the greatest part of it, and was there to think through the options at crucial stages of the research process. Our weekly coffee moments during the first months of my stay in England were a source of motivation and inspiration. I would like to thank John Morton and Kate Wellard for their pleasant style of supervising, for guiding me to interesting academic literature, and for their constructive and thorough feedback on the written chapters. I would like to thank the Vice Chancellor’s scholarship of the University of Greenwich for funding me for the first part of the PhD, and I thank the EU-funded ABACO project for facilitating the logistical aspects of the field work. I had the privilege of working closely with smallholder farmers and was humbled by their hospitality and wisdom. This research was only possible because they gave me some of their valuable time. I also thank the many respondents working at NGOs, GOs and the private sector, with whom I had very interesting and sometimes long discussions about the opportunities and constraints of sustainable smallholder agriculture. Their work is important and I hope this research contributes to it. The long periods of fieldwork in Kenya and Madagascar were fruitful and enjoyable thanks to the many friends and colleagues. In Kenya I was greatly helped by JJ Gitonga and the local ministry of Agriculture officers, by Saidi Mkomwa, Monica Buyu, Peter Kuria, Barry Pound, my local friends and neighbours, and my translators Anne, Stanley, Dolly and Francis. In Madagascar I am grateful for the help of Pascal Danthu, Lalaina Ranaivoson, Soary Randriamitantsoa, Roland and my translator team of Rivo, Tiavina and Doss. I thank the interesting, enthusiastic and open-minded people at NRI that contribute to a good work environment, especially my friends of the NRI Postgraduate Society. I will miss the frequent coffee breaks, the cheeky pints we had in the afternoon, the lively discussions, and the friendships that flourished in our ‘Tower’, overlooking the river Medway. Finally, I thank my parents(-in-law) for their loving support, and most importantly, I thank Maaike, my partner for life who followed me to the UK, Kenya and Madagascar, and back again; I treasure the good times we had and the homes we made. You supported me morally, academically, spiritually, and in every other way that matters, thank you. iii ABSTRACT In recent years, Conservation Agriculture (CA) has been promoted in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as an alternative farming system for smallholder farmers to address declining soil productivity and climate change. CA is a technology package based on 1) minimum soil disturbance; 2) permanent soil cover; and 3) maximum crop diversity through rotation/association. Claims about the potential benefits of CA for smallholder farmers in SSA are contested, and the (non-)adoption by farmers remains difficult to predict and understand. This research combines different conceptual models to better understand the adoption and promotion of CA in Kenya and Madagascar with a wider relevance for similar practices in SSA. For both countries, the major stakeholders in the innovation systems and their interlinkages are described, with a focus on the position of smallholder farmers. Stakeholders’ ‘theories of change’, narratives and ‘framing’ of the importance of CA, and their perceived legitimation for their involvement in CA, are described. Results show that the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) approach through Innovation Platforms remains difficult to translate into practice; expert-based development approaches remain the norm. It is argued that this is partly the result of an institutionalisation of purposive-rational policy and practice, while the capabilities approach and Habermas’ theory of communicative action explored in this thesis, suggest the need for a counter institutionalisation of more communicative-rational thinking and practice. Communicative action can enable an AIS approach that actually provides sustainable technological and institutional innovation. This research shows that the social-psychological Reasoned Action Approach is a useful heuristic for understanding farmers’ intention to adopt CA practices in terms of attitudes, perceived social norms and perceived behavioural control (PBC), and the respective underlying beliefs. Results show that attitudes and PBC are the main determinants of intentions. It is recommended to promote experimentation and learning, because these influence both PBC and attitudes. iv CONTENTS DECLARATION ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABSTRACT iv CONTENTS v TABLES AND FIGURES xi List of Tables xi List of Figures xii List of Boxes xiii List of Appendix Tables xiii GLOSSARY OF TERMS xiv Terms and abbreviations xiv Organizations and projects xv Words in Swahili (S) or Malagasy (M) languages xvii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Introduction to CA 3 1.1.1 CA and agro-ecological principles 3 1.1.2 How CA ideally works 5 1.1.3 Global spread of CA 7 1.2 Context of the study 8 1.2.1 The ABACO project 8 1.2.2 CA in the study areas in Kenya and Madagascar 9 1.3 Understanding adoption processes 11 1.4 Agricultural innovation: CA as contested agronomy 12 1.5 Research objectives and - questions 14 1.6 Structure and summary of the thesis 15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 17 Adoption of Conservation Agriculture 17 2.1 Introduction to literature review 17 2.2 Factors influencing adoption, an overview 18 2.3 CA adoption in SSA: constraints and opportunities 20 2.3.1 Agronomic factors 21 2.3.2 Gender and CA 23 2.3.3 Institutional factors 23 2.3.4 Profitability of CA 24 2.4 Broader perspectives on adoption studies 25 2.4.1 Inconclusive, contradictory evidence of ‘factors influencing adoption’ 25 2.4.2 Justification of adoption studies 26 v 2.4.3 Disappointing adoption 27 2.4.4 How ‘factors’ influence adoption 28 2.4.5 CA adoption: Push or pull? 30 2.5 Reasoned Action Approach and adoption studies 32 2.5.1 About the RAA 32 2.5.2 RAA and adoption 34 2.5.3 Building on RAA constructs 36 Promotion of Conservation Agriculture 39 2.6 Introduction to literature review 39 2.7 Chronology of paradigms of agricultural innovation 40 2.7.1 Transfer of technology 42 2.7.2 Participatory development 42 2.7.3 Agricultural treadmill 43 2.7.4 Agricultural Innovation Systems 43 2.8 Extension approaches 44 2.9 Unpacking the AIS approach 45 2.9.1 Degrees of participation 45 2.9.2 Instrumental, strategic and communicative rationalities 47 2.9.3 Agricultural innovation and social capital 48 2.10 CA Innovation Platforms in practice 49 2.10.1 A CA Innovation Platform in Zambia 50 2.10.2 Lessons learned on Innovation Platforms 51 2.10.3 Innovation Platform as instrument? 51 2.11 Targeting and tailoring CA 52 2.11.1 Tailoring CA research and promotion to the socio-ecological niche 52 2.11.2 Targeting and promotion of CA 54 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 56 3.1 Introduction 56 3.2 Theoretical perspectives 57 3.2.1 Social actor perspective 57 3.2.2 Critical theory and communicative action 58 3.3 Capabilities approach 60 3.3.1 Ethical aspects of CA 60 3.3.2 Defining development 61 3.3.3 Exploring capabilities 62 3.4 Conceptual framework 65 3.4.1 Capabilities and smallholder farming 67 3.4.2 Some implications of the capabilities framework 69 3.5 Reasoned Action Approach 70 3.5.1 Limits of conventional ‘factors influencing adoption’ approaches 70 3.5.2 RAA and capabilities 70 vi 4 METHODOLOGY 72 4.1 Introduction 72 4.2 Research questions 72 4.3 Mixed methods: between positivism and relativism 73 4.4 Study area Kenya: Laikipia County 74 4.4.1 Description of the area 74 4.4.2 CA in the study area 76 4.5 Study area Madagascar: Lake Alaotra 78 4.5.1 Description of the area 78 4.5.2 Two distinct landscapes: ‘The North’ and ‘the South’ 80 4.5.3 CA in the study area 81 4.6 Languages and translation 83 4.7 Chronology of the research process 84 4.8 Sampling strategy 84 4.8.1 Sampling in the ABACO project 84 4.8.2 Kenya 85 4.8.3 Madagascar 86 4.9 Research methods 87 4.9.1 Overview of methods 87 4.9.2 Semi-structured interviews 88 4.9.3 Social network analysis 88 4.9.4 Literature review 89 4.9.5 Structured questionnaire: Reasoned Action Approach 89 4.9.6 Focus group discussions 94 4.9.7 Observations and frequent field visits 95 4.10 Ethical considerations 96 4.11 Strengths and limitations of the study 96 5 CA IN THE AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION SYSTEM 99 5.1 Introduction

Load more