A presentation at the WCCA 2011 event in Brisbane.

1. Does Conservation Agriculture Pay?
Experiences from the smallholder farming
sector of Zimbabwe
Killian Mutiro, B. Mvumi, E. Keogh
GRM International
Protracted Relief Program (PRP)
Zimbabwe

2. PRP
Multi-donor programme, DFID
as main donor
Goal
Extreme poverty in
Zimbabwe reduced.
Purpose
Destitution prevented and
livelihoods of the poorest
and most vulnerable
protected and promoted
SUSTAINABLE IMPACT

3. Livelihood Social Protection WASH Other
Interventions Interventions
Agricultural inputs Food Transfers Water points Community Based
installation or Approaches
rehabilitation
CA farmer support Cash Transfers Latrines Capacity building of
community based
HH gardens HBC Support PHHE training groups
Community gardens
Small livestock
ISALs
ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT

4. Targeted Households: Very Poor Vulnerable Households
• Very poor with labour
• Net exporters of labour (in exchange for
grain, seed, draft power)
• No draft power
• Cant afford mineral fertilizers and seed
• Late planting
• Poor yields – less than 500kg/ha
• Food insecure
REDUCING VULNERABILITY

5. Targeted Household Profile
Wealth Groups Characteristics
Land area
HH size Crops cultivated Livestock Holding
cultivated
1ha-1.5ha Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas,
Very Poor 6 2-6 chickens
0.1ha gardens Groundnuts, Sweet Potato
Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas,
1.5ha-2ha 5-7 chickens, 1-3 goats
Poor 7 Cotton Groundnuts, Sweet
0.2ha gardens 1 cow
Potato
Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas,
2.25ha-2.75ha 8 chickens, 2-3 goats, 1-3
Middle 7 Groundnuts, Sweet Potato,
0.2ha garden cattle, 1 ox, 0-2 donkeys
Cotton
Maize, Sorghum, Cowpeas,
8ha-12ha 15+ chickens, 2+ Oxen, 4-6
Better-off 4 Groundnuts, Sweet Potato,
0.6ha gardens cattle, 7+ goats, 2-4 donkeys
Cotton
% of population
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
REDUCING VULNERABILITY

6. Strategy: CA Training and Input Support
Activity Achievement
HH
Agricultural 244,800
inputs
CA farmer 113,658
support
CA Package
(1) Permanent planting stations called potholes
or basins established using hand hoes
(2) Assistance with seed and fertilizer inputs
(3) On-going training
(4) Mechanization (credit for CA equipment)
FLEXIBILITY

7. Key Questions
1. Have we been able to address food insecurity among the
very poor households supported by PRP?
2. Is CA profitable for the very poor?
3. What is the Return to donor investment in CA?
POVERTY REDUCTION

8. Methodology
1. A modified Cost
Benefit Analysis
- Donor and household
investment
- Market prices ( did not
use economic prices)
2. Gross Margin Analysis
- Family labour
3. Modelling of scenarios
4. LIME monitoring
POVERTY REDUCTION

9. Scenarios for Modeling
Cropping Scenario Description
Normal farmer practice (no access to Conventional ploughing, planted mid
draft power) to late December and a minimum of
two weedings
Optimum farmer practice (with access Conventional ploughing soon after
to draft power) effective rainfall and two weedings
Optimum farmer practice and Conventional ploughing with 28kg of
microdosing N per ha
CA basins without fertilizer CA basins with two weeding and no
fertilizer
CA basins including fertilizer CA basins with two weeding and
28kg N per ha
COMMUNITY DRIVEN

10. Results
2500
2000
Yield Kg/ha
1500
1000
500
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
-500
Year
Farmer Practice - 410 kg Optimum Farmer - 708 kg Basins No Fert -741 kg
Optimum Farmer+ 28 kg N - 1257 kg Basins + 28 kg N - 1369 kg
Source: ICRISAT
INNOVATION

11. Results
•73% yield increase by just
planting in time(conventional)
•81% yield increase by planting
in time using basins
•5% increase in yield by
switching to basins (Opt
farmer to basins, no fertilizer)
•234% yield increase by
adopting basins and fertilizer
(28 kg N)
•9% yield benefit for adopting
basins from optimum farmer
with fertilizer
RESILIENCE

12. Results
Key Indicator Farmer Inexperience Experienced
Practice d CA Farmer CA Farmer
(1-3 years)
Return to labour 9.8 10.4 15.7
(US cents per
labour hour)
Cost of 239 146 126
producing a
tonne of maize
Kgs of grain per 0.79 1.11 1.37
labour hour
Cost Benefit
Ratio at 12% 2.6
discount rate
SUSTAINABLE IMPACT

13. Food Sources
120%
100%
80%
Gifts
Food aid
60%
Barter
Purchase
40% Payment in kind
Livestock products
Crops
20%
0%
Baseline Monitoring Baseline Monitoring Baseline Monitoring
Poor Middle Better Off
SOURCE: PRP LIME 2011
ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT

14. Conclusion
1. 80% of PRP supported CA farmers are food secure
2. Lots of life changing stories on CA
3. Good return on Donor Investment in CA
However;
1. Only 40% of the cultivated area is under CA.
- What could be limiting expansion?
- What is the most limiting input?
- Can mechanization be the answer? Affordability of
equipment by the very poor without credit support?
(average annual cash incomes for the very poor are under
USD500).
ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT

15. Conclusions
2. Some principles not being adopted.
- To what extend are we compromising yield benefits by not
adopting all the principles?
- Trade offs with other competing objectives – eg winter
weeding and gardening?
3. Affordability and availability of agricultural inputs.
- If agricultural input assistance or subsidy is withdrawn can
the very poor afford? Will they continue with CA?
- Capacity of agro-delears and input suppliers?
Additional information is available on our website
www.prpzim.info
PRO POOR APPROACHES

16. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!!
SOCIAL PROTECTION