The Social and Economic Impacts of Conservation Agriculture – Zimbabwe Basin ExperiencesKizito Mazvimavi

Presentation to the Beating Famine Conference, 14-17 April 2015, Lilongwe, Malawi

Background

Studies

Documents

Capacity Building

1. Extensive promotion of Conservation Agriculture (CA) by development agencies• targeting the poor and vulnerable

2. The use of incentives improved the uptake of planting basins CA

3. Insufficient labor often leads to reduced land utilization and late planting - leading to small yields

Assessing the Impacts of CA

• Select a treatment village, where CA has been actively promoted

• Control Village - in the same ward where CA has not been actively promoted

• Need for a counterfactual to attribute impacts due to CA adoption

Care not to attribute all livelihood benefits to CA in the absence of robust quantitative approaches could be oversimplification of an otherwise complex process

Zimbabwe CA Panel Surveys 2007-2011…13…15

Intensity of Adoption of CAComponents of CA being adopted

1. Higher adoption intensity in higher rainfall areas

2. Receiving NGO support has a positive effect on adoption intensity

3. Time has a negative and significant coefficient - a farmer is likely to adopt fewer techniques in subsequent years from the base.

Models to assess Intensity of Adoption (Mazvimavi & Twomlow 2009, and Pedzisa et al, 2014) for the

Panel Studies

Why Some Smallholder Farmers Abandon Basin CA

1. Wealthier households are likely to pursue other off- farm livelihood strategies and conventional tillage

2. Larger families are less labour constrained and are likely to persist with digging basins

3. Farmers with more years of experience are likely to continue with basin CA

4. Farmers were more likely to abandon basin CA in 2010 when NGO activity declined compared to 2008. – The likelihood of quitting CA increased by 50% in

2010, then drops to 32 % in 2011 and finally 10% in 2009.

Impact Analysis

Quantify some observed relationships to identify factors that contribute to:• Adoption of CA• Yield Impact Attributable to CA• Impact of CA on other Priorities• Aggregate Economic Effects of CA• R&D and Promotion

Yield Impacts of Adoption

CA adopters have much higher yields that non-users, in part due to:• Household characterization,• Unmeasured individual attributes• Environmental factors• And the effects of CA itself

Controlling for other factors CA =>Yield improvement of 60% to 85% in 2011/2012

Similar impact on Maize and Small Grains

Impact of Other Priorities

Self-Described Food SecurityFactors Increasing the Probability of Describing household as having enough food.

Factors Decreasing the Probability of Describing the household as having enough food.

Value of Assets =>+10% Female Headed Household =>-10%CA Training =>+12% Children Under 6 years => -4%Years for farming experience=>+1% Children 6-16 years => -3%Living in NR III*=>+18% Living in NR V* => -22%

*Compared to NR IV

Aggregate Economic Impact• Compare economic costs and returns based on

Area under CA (adoption rate) o attributable to CA R&D and promotion (not free input distributions)

• Yield Impact• Value of increased production• Cost of R&D and Supplemental Extension Effort• All varying over time and discounting to NPV

-Analysis uses DREAM model (IFPRI): Dynamic Research Evaluation for Management (Version 3, 2001)Based on Science Under Scarcity (Alston, Norton, Pardey, 1995)Widely applied to evaluate agric R&D

Impact to date (2001-2013)• Costs: ICRISAT costs for Conservation

Agriculture = US$ 4 million over 5 years• Adoption rate attributable to CA -training =

30%• Yield Effect = 80% (based on 2011/2012)• Average import price for period = $250/MT

=>• NPV benefits = 19.954 million US$ (2001)• Internal Rate of Return = 36.95

Impacts to Date (2001-2013): Robustness check

Scenario Parameters Results

Adoption Rate Productivity Effect

Share of CA R&D Costs

Present Value of Benefits (Million US$)

IRR

15% 40% 100% 4.941 10.3215% 80% 100% 9.983 22.5015% 40% 75% 4.941 15.9215% 80% 75% 9.983 29.1430% 40% 100% 9.983 22.5030% 80% 100% 19.965 36.9530% 40% 75% 9.983 29.1430% 80% 75% 19.965 44.8845% 40% 100% 14.974 30.6445% 80% 100% 29.948 46.6745% 40% 75% 14.974 38.0045% 80% 75% 29.948 55.50

Policy Insights• CA significantly contributes to food

production – CA provides essential option for farmers with land

and draft constraints• High input demand may limit adoption– High labor demand– High demand for external inputs There is potential to increase CA plot sizes through

mechanization There is need to include better resourced farmers as

technology innovators. Use of herbicides may reduce labor demand for weeding

Thank you!

ICRISAT is a member of the CGIAR Consortium