Evaluating manual conservation agriculture systems in southern Africa

Future threats of climate variability and change and accelerated soil degradation in southern Africa have increased the need for more sustainable and “climate-smart” agriculture practices. Manual systems of conservation agriculture (CA) based on seeding into planting basins or direct seeding techniques have received increased attention over the last decade. However, a critical review of the pros and cons of the different manual seeding systems under different agro-ecologies has been lacking. This paper aims at analysing different manual seeding systems in areas extending from central Mozambique to central Malawi. Results show that CA systems perform differently in contrasting agro-ecological environments. Direct seeded treatments had greater maize yields than conventional tillage practices by an average of 12–27% and outperformed the conventional practice in nine out of fourteen yield comparisons. Basin planted treatments performed well only in Sofala and Manica (15%) with yield penalties of −9% in Tete. The strongest factor influencing maize grain yields in the more variable areas of Manica and Sofala was the quality of season and the location, whereas tillage treatment and location were more important in the higher rainfall areas of Tete. Direct seeding systems out-yielded other treatments in areas of higher rainfall and responded better to a favourable environment than conventional tillage practices. CA systems, especially direct seeding in Malawi, Manica and Sofala, showed greater financial returns to investments and labour productivity due to reduced labour costs and higher yields. Labour savings of up to 43 labour days ha−1 could be achieved with direct seeded treatments in Malawi. The results of this research clearly highlight the need for site-specific recommendations and adaptation of CA systems to different agro-ecological environments. Blanket recommendations of one CA system across many agro-ecologies, as has often been done in the past, will only lead to underperformance of CA in some areas and rejection by smallholder farmers if yield benefits are not achieved

Overcoming constraints of scaling: Critical and empirical perspectives on agricultural innovation scaling

Scaling is a ubiquitous concept in agricultural research in the global south as donors require their research grantees to prove that their results can be scaled to impact upon the livelihoods of a large number of beneficiaries. Recent studies on scaling have brought critical perspectives to the rather technocratic tendencies in the agricultural innovations scaling literature. Drawing on theoretical debates on spatial strategies and practical experience of agricultural innovation scaling in Ethiopia, this paper adds to the current debate on what constitutes scaling and how to overcome critical scaling constraints. The data for the paper came from a qualitative assessment using focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and document analysis on scaling work done in Ethiopia by a USAID-funded research for development project. The paper concludes with four broad lessons for the current understating of agricultural innovation scaling. First, scaling of agricultural innovations requires a balanced focus on technical requirements and associated social dynamics surrounding scaling targets, actors involved and their social relations. Second, appreciating the social dynamics of scaling emphasizes the fact that scaling is more complex than a linear rolling out of innovations towards diffusion. Third, scaling may not be strictly planned; instead, it might be an extension of the innovation generation process that relies heavily on both new and long-term relationships with key partners, trust, and continuous reflection and learning. Fourth, the overall implication of the above three conclusions is that scaling strategies need to be flexible, stepwise, and reflective. Despite the promises of flourishing scaling frameworks, scaling strategies it would appear from the Africa RISING experience that, if real impact is to be achieved, approaches will be required to be flexible enough to manage the social, processual and emergent nature of the practice of scaling