Upload
fbaudron
View
58
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Frédéric Baudron, Raymond Nazare, Betina Edziwa, David Kahan
Harare, 17th March 2015
Two-wheel tractors, conservation
agriculture, and private sector involvement
Goal: (1) to improve access to mechanization, (2) reduce labour drudgery, and (3) minimize biomasstrade-offs in ESA, through accelerateddelivery and adoption of 2WT-based technologies by smallholders
Target countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe
Duration: March 2013 to February2017
Budget: 3.9 M Aus$ fromACIAR/AIFSRC, 0.9 M Aus$ fromCIMMYT, 1.1 M Aus$ from partners
FACASI (Farm Mechanization & Conservation
Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification)
(www.ndzl.org)
Solar energy fixed
biologically in plant
biomass
Plant biomass
converted into
animal biomass
Increasing labour shortages (rural-urban migration, HIV/AIDS, ageing population)
Declining number of draughtanimals (biomass shortage, drought, diseases)
High labour drudgery
Gender implications
Unattractive to the youth
Farm power: a major limiting factor to productivity in SSA?
Farm power: the forgotten
resource in SSA?
CA (No-Till) mainly adopted in South America, North America, Australia, & New Zealand (Derpsch and Friedrich, 2009)
One of the major incentive: reduction in fuel and machinery costs (Kassam et al., 2009)
Major incentive in the less mechanized systems in developing countries: early planting (arising from the reduced number of operations required to prepare the land)(Haggblade and Tembo, 2003)
Primary purpose of CA: establishing a crop with as little energy (= power × time) as possible
CA: first and foremost an
energy-saving technology
CA & Small Mech: Synergies
Soil inversion is the most power intensive operation.
Its suppression makes the use of lower powered, more
affordable and easier to maintain tractors possible.
CA with a Two-Wheel Tractor:
options commercially available
Strip tillage Direct-seeding: 2 rows Direct-seeding: 1 row
Dramatic reduction in the time
needed to establish a crop…
0
20
40
60
80
100
Conv land
prep +
planting
Conv
planting
Danyang
2BFG
VMP National
ZT
Fitarelli 2R Fitarelli 1R Morrisson
seeder
Tim
e (
ho
ur
ha
-1)
(Data from Hawassa, Ethiopia)
Low fuel consumption
5 to 10 L ha-1
Yield advantage for small grain
Myth 1: Small mech is not appropriate
for rainfed agriculture
Not powerful enough for ploughing… … but perfect for direct seeding
Myth 2: animal traction is cheaper than
small mech for SSF in SSA Time needed to establish a crop divided by 7
22
4 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
Anim tracconv ag
Anim tracCA
2WT CA
Tim
e (h
ou
rs p
er
ha)
7.33
1.33
0.25012345678
Anim tracconv ag
Anim tracCA
2WT CA
Lab
ou
rd
eman
d
(man
day
/ha)
Labour productivity 5 to 30 times higher
Same entry point cost
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Anim tracconv ag
Anim tracCA
2WT CA
Co
st (
US$
) 2WT no till pllanter
Anim trac no till planter
Anim tract conv planter
Anim trac plough
2WT 12HP
4 oxen
2530 2600 2800
2
1
6 hours per day 12 hours per day
(Baudron et al., submitted)
The same energy is needed for 8 hours work of a pair of oxen weighing 300 kg each, ...and for the production of 10 L of milk (60 MJ)
69
28
3
No retention
Less than 1 tone per ha
1 tone per ha or more
18
57
25
(Baudron et al., 2013)
Myth 3: Large mech is more efficient
than small mech
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
4WT (80HP) conv ag
4WT (80HP) CA
2WT CA
Fuel
co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
L p
er
ha)
Planting
Discing
Ploughing
63
15
6
Fuel consumption 2.5 to 10 times lower
05000
10000150002000025000300003500040000
4WTconv ag
4WT CA 2WT CA
Co
st (
US$
)
2WT no till pllanter
4WT 3 row no till planter
4WT 3 row planter
4WT disc harrow
4WT 2 disc plough
2WT 12HP
4WT (60 HP)
35590
21900
2800
Entry point cost 8 to 13 times lower
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
4WT conv ag 4WT CA 2WT CA
Tim
e (h
ou
rs p
er h
a)
5.65
0.85
2
Time needed to establish a crop divided by (0.4 to) 3
Myth 4: Small engines are totally new
to SSF in SSA countries
Supporting infrastructure (e.g. access
to finance, repair services, replacement parts,
fuel and lubricants) exists
1 grinding mills for 200 HH in Dombshawa 1 water pumps for 20 HH in Dombshawa
Large number of two- and three-wheelers
Gender aspects
It is more about impact of mechanization on gender relations and dynamics than it is about the machines being used by women
Do we really need ‘women friendly’ machines?
Gender dynamics
Access to services (and extension, credit, etc)
Control over resources
Intra-household decision making
Gender division of labour
Values and assumptions (e.g. women expected to work hard and long hours)
The paradox: high labour intensity,
but low demand articulation
Women supply most of the labour (e.g. in Western Kenya)
Women’s labour burden does not translate into articulation of demand for mechanization
Women have little control over financial resources (especially in female-headed households)
Women have little decision-making power (especially in male-headed households)
Women’s labour is not valued, and women’s high labour intensity is not recognized
19%
32%23%
27% Men
Women
Children
Hired
What tasks to mechanize in order
to reduce women’s labour burden?
Direct positive effects
Mechanization of transport and post-harvest operations
Indirect positive effects
Men’s tasks that affect women’s tasks (e.g. timeliness of planting affecting weeding intensity)
Men’s tasks that require women to prepare and transport food to men working in the field
Substitution of mechanization to animal draught power, reducing the labour need for livestock feeding and manure collection
Small mech = Appropriate mech
in most of SSA
Minimum negative social impact
Pro-poor (low entry point cost)
Equitable access (cheap service)
No need for land consolidation (2/3 of African farms smaller than 2 ha; Alteri, 2009)
No displacement of labour (mechanization of the most power-intensive operations only)
Minimimum negative environmental impacts
Climate smart (high fuel efficiency)
Minimum soil degradation (lower footprint, minimum tillage as a must in rainfed conditions)
Biodiversity (maintenance of heterogeneity at plot – e.g. trees – and landscape levels)
Small mech = Appropriate mech
in most of SSA
Commercializing small mech to
resource-constrained farmers
Private rural service providers
Only few farmers will be able to purchase machines individually
Not profitable for farmers to own machines unless they provide services
Multi-purpose uses (to maximize mechanization use rates)
Linking input BM to output BM (cash flow)
Bundling of services and products (to reduce the cost of mechanization services)
Possible need of a broker (weak markets, vulnerable farmers)
Multipurpose use of 2WTs
High demand for mechanization, even at low labour wage for:
Transport
Power-intensive operations that require little human control (e.g. shelling)
Power-intensive operations that are unprofitable when unmechanized (e.g. water pumping)
Entry points?
Several models…
1. Group owner/ operator model (KEN, TAN)
2. Group owner/ individual operator model (TAN)
3. Individual owner/ operator model – local market, part time SP (farmer to farmer) (ETH, KEN)
4. Individual owner/ operator model – wider market, full time SP (ETH)
5. Contract farming – corporate owner/ operator model (ZIM)
6. Dealer-led vertically integrated model (KEN, ZIM)
7. Dealer-led collaborative model (ETH)
8. Manufacturer-led vertically integrated model (TAN)
9. Manufacturer-led collaborative model (TAN)
Steps
1. Identifying tasks to be mechanized (low labor productivity and/or high labor drudgery, likely demand)
2. Identifying/manufacturing suitable machines
3. Creating demand (incentives for commercial actors)
4. Building capacity and skills for mechanization and business (machines owned by farmers at an early stage, entrepreneurs specialized in hiring services later)
5. Linking to finance
Thank you!