A presentation at the WCCA 2011 event in Brisbane.

1. Up-scaling of Conservation Agriculture in Zambia: Key
barriers to the practice of minimum tillage among
smallholder farmers
Progress H Nyanga

2. NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES
Dept. of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric
 Conservation Agriculture in Zambia
– Less than 120,000 farmers in 2006 to over 180,000 in 2010
practising minimum tillage
• Conservation agriculture basins and/or ripping
– Increase in district coverage (e.g. from 12 to 17 districts for CFU)
– Increase in number of actors promoting CA
– About 20% of total cultivated land is under minimum tillage
 This study
– 640 households under CFU’s Conservation Agriculture Programme
(CAP I)
– Households interviewed each farming season from 2006/2007 to
2009/2010
2
– Mixed methods were used
www.umb.no 2

3. NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES
Dept. of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric
Results
Use of various tillage methods
80
Percentage of households
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3
2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010
Conventional handhoe Conservation farming basins
Ploughing Ripping
www.umb.no 3

4. NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES
Dept. of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric
Average area under tillage methods
2
1.8
1.6
Average area (ha)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010
4
Conventional handhoe Conservation farming basins
Ploughing Ripping
www.umb.no 4

5. NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES
Dept. of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric Area under tillage methods as percentage of
total tilled land
80
70
60
Percentage area
50
40
30
20
10
0
2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10
5
CV Handhoe CA basins Ploughing Ripping
www.umb.no 5

6. NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES
Dept. of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric
Barriers to up-scaling
 Cultural
– Ploughing and livestock (e.g. southern & central provinces)
– Dry season land preparation competing with other activities
 Institutional
– Slow rate of commercialisation of the ripper (14% ownership in
2010)
– Lack of timely access to seed and fertiliser
– Policy environment
 Technological
– Lack of suitable labour saving technologies
• Heaviness of Chaka hoe
 Differences in objectives
6
– Diversifying tillage methods vs conversion & intensification
 Environmental
– Flooding in basins system
www.umb.no 6

7. NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES
Dept. of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric
Implications
 Technological approach to up-scaling is necessary but
not sufficient
– Technologies must be sensitive to the end users (e.g
women)
 Other aproaches are necessary
– Institutional and policy approaches
• Re-orientation of subsidy to include rippers
• Aligning government programmes (FISP) to CA
programmes and practices
7
www.umb.no 7

8. 8
Thank you
www.umb.no
Dept. of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric
8
NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES