THE EXTENT OF ADOPTION OF CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE WITH TREES BY SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN TANZANIA

Transcription

1 THE EXTENT OF ADOPTION OF CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE WITH TREES BY SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN TANZANIA SIMON LUGANDU HAMISI DULLA DEOGRATIAS NGOTIO SAIDI MKOMWA MAY

2 ABOUT AUTHORS Dr. Simon Lugandu is the ACT Coordinator for the East and Horn of Africa sub region. He has over 20 years working experience in sustainable management of land and environment programmes. Within ACT apart from coordination role he is engaged promotion of conservation agriculture. Dr Lugandu holds a PhD in Community Economic Development, specializing in participatory natural resources management institutions and sustainable rural livelihood development. He also has an MSc in Community Economic Development and BSc in Forestry. Eng. Saidi Mkomwa is the Executive secretary of ACT. Saidi Mkomwa holds an MSc in Agricultural Engineering. He also holds a BSc in Mechanical Engineering. He has over 30 years of experience in agricultural research and rural development. Mkomwa was a Principal Researcher with the Ministry of Agriculture in Tanzania prior to joining ACT. His main focus apart from being at the helm of the ACT management is animal traction based conservation agriculture, cover crops and adaptation and adoption of Conservation Agriculture. Mr. Hamisi Dulla is the ACT Knowledge and Information Manager for the African Conservation Tillage Network. He possesses an MSc Natural Resource Management (Community Development elective). He also holds a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture. Dulla has over 12 years working experience in agricultural related projects including Conservation Agriculture both at local and international levels. Prior to joining ACT, Dulla worked with Nongovernmental organisations in Tanzania and FAO Kenya focusing on promotion of Conservation Agriculture, knowledge and information management and networking. Mr. Deogratias Ngotio is a Programme Officer for ACT in Tanzania. As an extension officer Deogratias is currently providing technical support to stakeholders and farmers in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of ACT programs. Deogratias possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural Education and Extension. He has more than 6 years experience of working with farmers and farmer organisations at grassroots level. 2

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The survey was conducted in six districts (Karatu,,,, Bukoba Rural and ) in Tanzania to identify and document the extent of adoption of conservation agriculture with trees by smallholder farmers. Data were collected using cross-sectional household surveys, key informants interviews, and group discussions. Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods were used. Information collected through PRA, Focused Group Discussions (FGDs), participant observations and unstructured interviews was analysed using content analysis techniques. The analysis involved undertaking and recording the verbal discussions with respondents followed by breaking the dialogue information into smallest units of information, subjects and tendencies and presented as text. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were undertaken for quantitative data statistics with help of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Version 17). Binary logistic regression analysis was adopted to analyse the factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture and the factors influencing intercropping of trees with food crops. The study findings indicate that only a small proportion of 5% of interviewed households across the six districts are implementing both the three principles of conservation agriculture (i.e. minimum soil disturbance, soil cover, and crop rotation or associations. The principle of crop rotation or association is implemented by 61% of interviewed households while principles of soil cover and minimum soil disturbance are poorly implemented by only 21% and 19% of households across the six districts respectively. The study also showed that 46% of the households are intercropping trees with food crops. Bukoba rural district has the largest number of conservation agriculture implementers (21%) followed by and Karatu (3%) and (2%). Based on the survey results, and are considered as districts still practicing conventional agriculture. Food shortage has been reported by households in all survey districts. Between April and June still many of households (49.2%) in Karatu districts face food shortage. Households in Bukoba (57.4%) and (73.7%) indicated that they also face food shortage between October and December. This calls for adoption of alternative production technologies that can boost food production for food security among households in Tanzania. Livestock keeping is practiced by more than 65% of households in the study districts. Challenges related to competition for animal feeds against soil coverage need more attention and investigation. Land tenure system whereby 70% of households have own land rights ensures promotion for adoption of CAWT. Trees planting in some districts especially the semi arid districts is weak hence difficulties in implementation of CAWT. Conservation agriculture and agroforestry technologies have been reported to be ways of serving labour for majority of households. The main source of labour for 78% of households from all districts is from the family itself while 21% of households indicated that labour is hired. The labour constraining farm operations that were reported include ploughing (34%), Weeding (27%) and Planting (23%). At least 50% of all operations are carried out by both men and women. Ploughing seems to be more practiced by men (41%) as compared to women alone (9%). Majority of households (more than 69%) do not have knowledge about conservation agriculture with tree. The top three most effective promotional strategies for agroforestry and conservation farming technologies were reported to be seminars and training (by 68% of all interviewed households), demonstration farm (52%) and farmer to farmer knowledge sharing in community meetings (51%). Farmer Field Schools and contact farmers are appreciated by 56% and 47% of households respectively in all districts as methods that could be used for dissemination of 3

4 conservation agriculture with tree information. It has been revealed that that only 41% of households in all districts had benefitted from free training materials provided by stakeholders who are engaged in conservation agriculture or agroforestry. Although 34% households across the six districts did not respond to the question about what changes have resulted from conservation agriculture but those who did showed that conservation agriculture is likely to reduce burden to farmers in terms time and labour spent for farming activities and increase farm productivity. 64 % of interviewed households see CAWT as a possible mitigation against negative effects of climate change. Results from the survey have revealed that the factors that significantly (p<0.05) affect adoption of conservation agriculture in the six study districts are access to training resources, knowledge dissemination through farmer research groups and weather conditions. The factors influencing intercropping of tree with food crops include the size of land owned (p=0.021), the role of trees in climate change mitigation (p=0.010) and weather conditions (<0.005). Although the extent of adoption or implementation of conservation agriculture with trees is very low the reasons and experiences for scaling up the same are evident. It is acknowledged that CAWT improves agricultural productivity, reduces rural poverty and mitigates effects of climate change. Although conservation agriculture is holding the promise for helping to adapt to the problems the thrust among the stakeholders is still limited. Deliberate efforts for designing and implementing strategies for up scaling CAWT is important, particularly ensuring directing large investments of the same. The poor supply chain for equipments, availability of appropriate tree species, proper knowledge and information are sighted as among the factors that must be studies further and implementable programmes developed. 4

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACT wishes to acknowledge the support from Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) for enabling implementation of this baseline survey. SIDA s contribution is valued since the generation of the baseline information is critically necessary for strengthening knowledge, advancing technical capacity development, and up-scaling sustainable land management practices including conservation agriculture and agroforestry. ACT acknowledges the partnership with ICRAF which resulted in the joint concept note that drove at incorporating trees into conservation agriculture. Thanks to the government of Tanzania through the Ministry of Agriculture for providing all the necessary information and encouragement to finding the status of implementation of the conservation agriculture and agroforestry technologies in the country. This study could have been difficult if support from the District Executive Directors in Karatu,,,, Bukoba Rural and and their technical staff in the department of agriculture was not provided. ACT is indebted to field assistants (enumerators) for conducting the household interviews with great energy and vigour. We also thank all households that participated in the interviews. Village leaders are also appreciated for facilitating process for household interviews and focused group discussions. Since it is not possible to mention all who assisted us during this survey, we would like to use this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to all of them for their valuable inputs otherwise this report could not be produced. 5

6 TABLE OF CONTENT ABOUT AUTHORS... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... 5 TABLE OF CONTENT... 6 LIST OF TABLES... 7 LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION Background Conservation Agriculture Trees in Farming Systems Survey Objectives SURVEY METHODOLOGY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Farm enterprise characteristics Food security Livestock keeping on farm Intercropping of subsistence crops with trees Landholding and land tenure Household sources of labour Knowledge and information on conservation agriculture with trees Knowledge on Conservation agriculture Knowledge on conservation agriculture with Trees How conservation agriculture technologies are disseminated Promotional strategies of agroforestry and conservation farming technologies Farmers participation in decision making on technology implementation Support for conservation agriculture and agroforestry technologies Changes on farming due to conservation agriculture CAWT and climate change Farmer to farmer learning about conservation agriculture Benefits of incorporating trees in CA system Extent of adoption of conservation agriculture with trees The practice of conservation agriculture principles and agroforestry Level of adoption and practice of conservation agriculture Factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture Factors influencing intercropping trees with food crops CONCLUSIONS Incremental adoption of CAWT Introduction of tree in cropland The role and importance of CAWT in climate change mitigation Strengthening of CAWT technologies knowledge and information Large investments in CAWT Research and Development REFERENCES

7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Percentage of households with different types of land ownership in the six study districts Table 2: Main sources of farm and household Table 3: How farmers are coping with labour peaks in the study districts Table 4: Labour constraining farm operations Table 5: Percentage gender that is primarily responsible for farm operations Table 6: Percentage of households and their knowledge of conservation agriculture Table 7: How households understand about conservation agriculture with tree Table 8: How conservation agriculture technologies are disseminated in six districts in Tanzania Table 9: Most effective promotional strategies of agroforestry and conservation farming technologies Table 10: Percentage of households receiving various supports for implementation of CA in six districts of Tanzania Table 11: Percentages of farmers reporting changes due to conservation agriculture Table 12: Percentage of farmers whose neighbours have shown interest in CA technologies Table 13: The percentage of households who have reported the number of farmer neighbours who copied or asked for help on CA technologies Table 14: Percentage of households showing CA technologies copied by neighbours Table 15: Percentage of household mentioning the benefits of incorporating trees in conservation agriculture system Table 16: Percentage of households implementing conservation agriculture and agroforestry practices Table 17: Factors affecting adoption level of conservation agriculture Table 18: Education level of households in study districts Table 19: Percentage of age categories of the heads of households in the study districts Table 20: Percentage head of households by gender across the six districts Table 21: Marital status of head of households across in the study districts Table 22: Factors influencing intercropping trees with food crops

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Quarterly sources of food for households Figure 2: Percentage of households keeping livestock in their farm Figure 3: Percentage of households intercropping trees with food crops Figure 4: Mean household land size Figure 5: Proportion of households involved in decision making on CAWT technologies Figure 6: Percentage of households perceiving that CAWT can mitigate negative effects of climate change Figure 7: Percentage of households implementing various conservation agriculture principles and agroforestry Figure 8: Percentage of households implementing conservation agriculture in study districts.. 29 Figure 9: Household size by district Figure 10: Mean household land size Figure 11: Age of head of households

9 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Declining soil fertility, climatic extremes, high costs of inputs and lack of support for diversified income sources are widely recognized as major factors responsible for declining agricultural productivity and increasing rural poverty and they painting a dismal picture of the capacity of Africa to feed its burgeoning population especially in sub-saharan Africa (SSA). In light of these trends, the Conference of African Union (AU) Ministers of Agriculture, Land and Livestock in 2009 called upon Member States to increase investment support to initiatives aimed at strengthening knowledge, advancing technical capacity development, and up-scaling sustainable land management practices. The conference declared for support for the imperative of scaling-up conservation agriculture and agroforestry across the continent. The declaration stated specifically: Requests the AUC-NEPAD to facilitate development of an agricultural-based climate change adaptation framework to guide operationalization and financing the scaling up of Sustainable Land Management in the context of NEPAD s CAADP, and Calls upon Member States to increase investment support to initiatives aimed at strengthening knowledge, advancing technical capacity development, and up-scale sustainable land management practices including conservation agriculture and agroforestry. In response to this AU Ministers declaration NEPAD, COMESA, The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), The African Conservation Tillage Network (ACT), and a number of other key organizations and donors involved in supporting conservation agriculture and agroforestry for food security and climate change adaptation held a series of meetings to develop a planning and implementation process to launch a continent-wide campaign to address the Ministers concerns. It was hypothesized that integrating trees with conservation agriculture (Conservation Agriculture with Tree - CAWT) has the potential to enable smallholder farmers attain resilient evergreen agriculture leading to more sustainable production and agroecosystems, and hence contribute to poverty reduction and increased food security while enhancing the resilience of systems in the face of climate change. However, for CAWT to become a reality for smallholder farmers in SSA there are several gaps in knowledge that must be filled. Information is lacking on the drivers that have made some countries succeed in scaling up CA, the constraints they face and how they address them, lessons learnt and how to advance success to larger scale impacts. The complementary effects of trees on CA under different environmental conditions are not well documented. Other issues include knowledge on how long term access to land, availability of inputs, appropriate CA implements, adequate extension support and advice, and institutional and policy support influence adoption of CA. Empowering, adaptive and participatory, bottom-up research and extension approaches are essential to stimulate more farmers to test and adopt CA and agroforestry for sustainable production intensification. 1.2 Conservation Agriculture Conservation Agriculture (CA) is an approach to managing agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained productivity, increased profits and food security while preserving and enhancing the resource base and the environment. Conservation Agriculture relies on three basic principles; (i) minimum soil disturbance or if possible, no tillage seeding; (ii) soil cover, if possible permanent; and (iii) useful crop rotations and association. Minimal disturbance of the soil by tillage reduces land and water pollution and soil erosion, reduces long-term dependency on external inputs, enhances environmental management, 9

10 improves water quality and water use efficiency, and reduces emissions of greenhouse gases through lessened use of fossil fuels. Reduced tillage leads to lessened human inputs, in both time and effort this is generally attractive overall, but it is critical in HIV-affected regions. Mixing and rotating of crops has been reported to replenish soil fertility through intercropping with nitrogen-fixing legumes which adds top-dressing fertilizer to the soil; enable crops to use the nutrients in the soil more effectively; help to control weeds, diseases and pests by breaking their life cycles through the introduction of a new crop; and reduce the risk of total crop failure in cases of drought and disease outbreaks. Keeping the soil covered is a fundamental principle of CA as cover crops improve the stability of the CA system, not only on the improvement of soil properties but also for their capacity to promote an increased biodiversity in the agroecosystems. CA can be traced in Tanzania from way back in 1950s when government extension programs promoted physical soil and water conservation structures to control surface water runoff. Lessons from the previous initiatives show that conservation agriculture is one of the most concrete and promising ways of implementing sustainable agriculture in practice in Tanzania as well as in other developing economies especially if controversial issues such as the challenge farmers face in keeping the soil covered, in gaining access to adequate no-tillage seeding equipment, in controlling weeds and on the institutional challenges faced in implementing truly participatory approaches to technology development are addressed (Shetto et al., 2007). The importance of promoting the principles of conservation agriculture in Tanzania lies on the fact that more than 60% of the country is classified as semi-arid with one third of the land with a bad prospect of obtaining an annual rainfall of less than 750 mm (Dutt et al., 1981; Gommes and Houssian, 1992). Further to this nearly throughout the country, potential evapotranspiration exceeds rainfall during more than nine months of the year. Moisture stress, which results from high rates of evapo-transpiration and low precipitation, is considered as one of the main limiting factor to crop production. The soils, as with the rest of the tropical semi-arid zone, are on the whole light, porous and shallow with low moisture holding capacity, making them susceptible to soil erosion. The soil surface is usually exposed because of the limited vegetation cover, allowing a rapid run off from the sporadic conventional down pours and hence encouraging soil erosion. Deforestation, over-grazing and inappropriate tillage practices are contributing heavily to land degradation. With the increased population pressure, the fallow periods, which were commonly practiced have become shorter, or are totally lost, perpetuating the soil mining of nutrients and the replenishment of nutrients is low because of inadequate application of manure and inorganic fertilizers. This leads to a further decline in soil fertility, which is manifested in declined crop yields. Generally soil fertility, soil erosion, declined crop yields and the inability to purchase fertilizer have been ranked among the major constraints to crop production in the country and many farmers have reported that the yield of maize has declined from bags/acre that used to be harvested twenty years ago to 5-10 bags/acre that are currently getting harvested now (BACAS, 1996). With these factors in consideration the importance of promoting principles and technologies of conservation agriculture with trees in Tanzania to eliminate many of these problems cannot be overemphasized. The advantages of conservation agriculture in labour saving cost effectiveness and sustainable soil fertility and environmental conservation have been well studied and documented (e.g. Hensley and Bennie, 2003; RELMA, 1998, Barron et al.., 2003; Rockstrom et al.., 2003, Enfors, 2009). Conservation tillage has of recent years been used to build and maintain soil quality in tropical agriculture ecosystems (Fowler and Rockstrom, 2001; Bollinger et al., 2006; Hobbs et 10

11 al., 2008). However, the most important benefit having immediate impact to smallholder farmers in semi-arid agro-ecosystems is in-situ rainwater harvesting for mitigating drought and dry spells (McHugh et al.., 2007). The soil fertility effects are similarly important, but it takes some years and effort to reach the needed profit and resilient levels (Lal, 2004; Vanlauwe and Giller, 2006). 1.3 Trees in Farming Systems The use of trees to promote scaling up of CA in the region is timely given declining ability of the countries to support meaningful agricultural development. Conventional investments in agriculture are characterised by a heavy reliance on external inputs mainly fertilizers supplied through external aid, and is heavily subsidized. The high external-inputs strategy is hardly sustainable given that immediately after aid withdrawal subsidies are discontinued, as has been seen often in the past. The benefits accruing from the incorporation of trees in CA include, among others, the gradual build up of the capacity of poor farming communities to access inputs. Fertilizer trees contribute to soil physical, chemical and biological improvements that lead to sustainable production systems. Fodder from trees integrated into CA fills an important feeds supply gap, especially during the dry season. Well-fed livestock will provide more milk and meat, and provide much-needed manure; an important component in CA. Fodder from trees will also contribute to minimizing the need for feeding livestock with crop residue and hence provide the much needed material for soil cover. Agroforestry can play a significant role in CA by mitigating the impacts of extreme events and the resulting threats to food security. In addition to supplying wood and non-wood tree products, they restore soil fertility, enhance biological diversity, and improve the microclimate by buffering winds, regulating the water table, and providing shade to crops and animals (FAO, 2007). Improvement in crop yields under agroforestry systems has been reported in Malawi where an average 4-fold yield increases have been achieved by intercropping maize with Gliricidia sepium, a nitrogen-fixing tree (Pye-Smith, 2008; Sileshi et al.., 2008). Further, experiences from Malawi and Zambia show that through careful sequencing of annual, biennial and perennial agroforestry species the problem of weeds can be effectively dealt with, leading to savings in labour that could be used in other components of the farming enterprise. The CA practices coupled with Agroforestry technologies results to a much more resilient agricultural and livestock production system while conserving the environment. Integrating tree growing with crop and livestock production, tackles the combined problems of poor agricultural production, worsening wood production, fodder problems, and soil degradation. One of the important agroforestry trees is Faidherbia albida. Its reverse phrenology allows it to leaf up in the dry season and defoliates in the rains reducing almost to zero, competition with growing crops. It is estimated that mature FA trees supply the equivalent of 300 kg of complete fertilizer and 250kg of lime. This natural endowment can sustain a maize yield of 4 tons/ha with no supplementary fertilizers. The combination of CA and AF technologies i.e. CAWT is believed to offer greater advantages in sustainable agriculture and environmental conservation leading to improvement of livelihoods and standard of living to rural communities (small scale farmers). There is a great interest in Tanzania to utilize benefits of conservation agriculture with trees to support poverty reduction, food security and climate change adaptation and mitigation. In order to bridge the knowledge gap for up scaling conservation agriculture and agroforestry, ACT and ICRAF submitted to SIDA a project planning concept note titled Conservation 11

12 Agriculture With Trees (CAWT): Scaling-up the Science and Practice of Conservation Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. This project was implemented in 2011 in four countries including Tanzania. Other countries are Zambia, Kenya and Ghana. The overall objective of the CAWT project was to ascertain the status of adoption of CAWT, the current policy framework, and ongoing programmes that will form the basis for climate smart agriculture investment programme in Sub-Saharan Africa. To develop a continent-wide programme, baseline information was necessary to equip farm households with the capacity to begin practicing agroforestry-based conservation agriculture. Such a programme requires the best information available on the previous and current experiences with conservation agriculture in Africa, and will require the development of a broad base of institutional and organizational support for its successful up scaling. This report documents the status of the extent of adoption of conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers and the institutional and organizational infrastructure to support upscaling of conservation agriculture with trees in Tanzania. 1.4 Survey Objectives The overall objective of the survey was to identify and document the extent of adoption of conservation agriculture with trees by smallholder farmers in Tanzania. The specific objectives were: 1. To explore farm enterprise characteristics of smallholder farmers that would influence adoption of CAWT 2. To identify methods of CAWT knowledge and information dissemination in Tanzania 3. To determine the extent of and factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture with trees by smallholder farmers in Tanzania 4. To raise the emerging issues for promotion of conservation agriculture with trees in Tanzania 2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY The baseline survey was conducted in six districts of Karatu,,,, Bukoba Rural and with the purpose of documenting the status of the extent of adoption of conservation agriculture with trees by smallholder farmers in Tanzania.. The selection of these districts was guided by agro ecological zone and previous history of the implementation of conservation agriculture and agroforestry. The output was achieved by conducting community and farm-level qualitative and quantitative cross-sectional surveys of adoption status of CA technologies. The study assessed household farm enterprises, mechanism of access to knowledge and information about CAWT and the factors influencing adoption of CAWT. Data were collected using cross-sectional household surveys, key informants interviews, and group discussions. Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods were used. Information collected through PRA, Focused Group Discussions (FGDs), participant observations and unstructured interviews were analysed using content analysis techniques. The analysis involved undertaking and recording the verbal discussions with respondents followed by breaking the dialogue information into smallest units of information, subjects and tendencies and presented as text. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were undertaken for all quantitative data statistics with help of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Version 17). Binary logistic regression analysis was adopted to analyse the factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture and the factors influencing intercropping of trees in food crops. 12

13 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Farm enterprise characteristics Food security Results from the survey showed that for all districts the main source of food for all quarters is from own farms followed by off farm purchase. Aid or other sources is a least contributor to food sources for all districts (Figure 1). Food shortage has been reported in all quarters by households in all districts. January to March seem to be a period where households in (69.7%), Karatu (55.6%) and (64.9%) face food shortage. Between April and June still many of households (49.2%) in Karatu districts face food shortage. Households in Bukoba (57.4%) and (73.7%) indicated that they also face food shortage between October and December. These results suggest that appropriate agriculture technologies are needed to boost food production for food security among households in Tanzania. 53% 47% 91% 9% Bukoba rural 90% 8% 70% 27% 97% 3% 50% 39% Karatu 57% 41% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mainly from own farm Mainly from off farm purchase Source of food: January - March Bukoba rural 85% 11% 3% 85% 15% 97% 3% 91% 9% Karatu 54% 44% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mainly from own farm Mainly from off farm purchase Mainly from aid or other sources Source of food: April June 86% 14% 44% 54% 2% Bukoba rural 84% 15% 2% Bukoba rural 77% 21% 2% 91% 6% 3% 91% 6% 3% 100% 100% 0% 100% 82% 17% 2% Karatu 94% 5% 2% Karatu 90% 8% 2% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Mainly from own farm Mainly from off farm purchase Mainly from aid or other sources Source of food: July - September 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mainly from own farm Mainly from off farm purchase Mainly from aid or other sources Source of food: October December Figure 1: Quarterly sources of food for households 13

14 (N=57) 35.1% 64.9% (N=57) 80.7% 19.3% Bukoba rural (N=61) 78.7% 21.3% Bukoba rural (N=61) 75.4% 24.6% (N=33) 63.6% 36.4% (N=33) 75.8% 24.2% (N=30) 93.3% 6.7% (N=30) 100.0%.0% (N=66) 30.3% 69.7% (N=66) 89.4% 10.6% Karatu (N=63) 44.4% 55.6% Karatu (N=63) 50.8% 49.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No food shortage Food shortage Food availability: January - March 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No food shortage Food shortage Food availability: April June (N=57) 77.2% 22.8% (N=57) 26.3% 73.7% Bukoba rural (N=61) 67.2% 32.8% Bukoba rural (N=61) 42.6% 57.4% (N=33) 78.8% 21.2% (N=33) 75.8% 24.2% (N=30) 100.0%.0% (N=30) 96.7% 3.3% (N=66) 98.5% 1.5% (N=66) 78.8% 21.2% Karatu (N=63) 84.1% 15.9% Karatu (N=63) 76.2% 23.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No food shortage Food shortage Food availability: July - September 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No food shortage Food shortage Food availability: October - December Livestock keeping on farm Results from the survey show that at least 65% of households in the study are keep livestock on their farm (Figure 2). Karatu and districts have the largest proportion of households that keep livestock. Adoption of implementation of CA can be influenced by whether a farmer keeps livestock or not. The challenge which is likely to occur is the competition of the mulch or cover crops for soil cover with animal fodder. These results agree with the one by Giller et al. (2009). 90% 80% 70% 86% 71% 83% 70% 77% 65% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 14% 29% 17% 30% 23% 35% 10% % Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) Yes No Figure 2: Percentage of households keeping livestock in their farm 14

15 3.1.3 Intercropping of subsistence crops with trees Findings indicate that Bukoba rural and and have the highest proportions of households intercropping trees with food crops (Figure 3). Literature has documented the benefits of trees when intercropped with crops (e.g. Sileshi et al., 2008, FAO, 2007). The benefits accruing from the incorporation of trees in CA include, among others, the gradual build up of the capacity of poor farming communities to access inputs. Fertilizer trees contribute to soil physical, chemical and biological improvements that lead to sustainable production systems. Fodder from trees integrated into CA fills an important feeds supply gap, especially during the dry season. Well-fed livestock will provide more milk and meat, and provide much-needed manure; an important component in CA. Fodder from trees will also contribute to minimizing the need for feeding livestock with crop residue and hence allow pthe much needed organic material to remain as soil cover. 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 52% 48% 85% 15% 27% 73% 39% 61% 23% 77% 74% 26% 10% % Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) No Yes Figure 3: Percentage of households intercropping trees with food crops Landholding and land tenure Study findings indicate that the average land holding per household across the six districts in 11ha, with districts having the largest average of 24ha per households and Karatu the lowest average of 4ha per household (Figure 13). The amount of land owned can influence the adoption of the type of technology. Putler and Zilberman (1988) revealed the importance of physical capital endowment in the adoption process. Physical capital commonly associated with adoption of technologies has been identified as farm size or cultivated land, livestock and farm implements owned (Rahm & Huffman, 1984; Nkonya et al.., 1997). The majority of households in the study district (70%) have a nuclear family land ownership while 14% have extended family land ownership. Transferability, use of land can be determined by the type land ownership so is adoption of conservation agriculture technologies. 15

16 Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) All districts (N=310) Land size, Hactors Karatu Bukoba rural All Land size Figure 4: Mean household land size Table 1: Percentage of households with different types of land ownership in the six study districts Nuclear family owned Under extended family Communal land but allowed to live and farm Government owned but allowed to live and farm Rented Squatter Other Household sources of labour Survey results showed that the main source of labour for 78% of households from all districts is from the family itself while 21% of households indicated that labour is hired (Table 2). As depicted in results in Table 2, in the events of labour shortages households have mainly tended to hire external labour (54%), Hire machinery (6%), and engage work parties (25%). In some cases (2%) households have opted for technologies such as conservation agriculture or have 16

17 accepted delays in farm operations (10%). This results suggest that the use of conservation agriculture and agroforestry technologies have not been seen as a way of serving labour for majority of households, the opportunity which is lost. Table 2: Main sources of farm and household District Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) All districts (N=310) Family Hired Other Table 3: How farmers are coping with labour peaks in the study districts Source District All Karatu Bukoba districts rural Hire external 37(59*) 47(71) 19(63) 25(76) 27(44) 12(21) 167(54) labour Hire machinery 8(13) 1(2) 0(0) 6(18) 4(7) 0(0) 19(6) Work parties 14(22) 4(6) 2(7) 2(6) 16(26) 41(72) 79(25) Accept delays in 2(3) 9(14) 4(13) 0(0) 14(23) 3(5) 32(10) operation Seek CAWT 0(0) 2(3) 4(13) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 6(2) technologies Other 2(3) 3(5) 1(3) 0(0) 0(0) 1(2) 7(2) Total 63(100) 66(100) 30(100) 33(100) 61(100) 57(100) 310(100) *Figures in brackets are percentages When asked about the labour constraining farm operation households reported that ploughing (34%), Weeding (27%) and Planting (23%) are the most constraining operations (Table 4). This shows that there lies a great potential of application of conservation agriculture technologies such as rippers, jab planters, direct seeders in relieving households from such constraints. Results in Table 5 depict the gender which is primarily responsible for undertaking the field operation. At least 50% of all operations are carried out by both men and women. Ploughing seems to be more practiced by men (41%) as compared to women alone (9%). The introduction of CA technologies will simplify the work of both men and women. Table 4: Labour constraining farm operations Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) Ploughing Ridging Planting All (N=310) 17

18 Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) All districts (N=310) Operation Gender Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) All districts (N=310) Weeding Transportatio n (manure/ fertiliser/ crop harvests) Other Table 5: Percentage gender that is primarily responsible for farm operations Ploughing Male Female Both Ridging Male Female Both Planting Male Female Both Weeding Male Female Both Transportati on Male Female Both Knowledge and information on conservation agriculture with trees Knowledge on Conservation agriculture Results from the survey show that households from the study areas could not respond (55%) or didn t know (14%) about what conservation agriculture is. While the rest of responses had good elements that compose conservation agriculture, the knowledge is not complete. The existing knowledge gap is likely to impede farmers from taking up and practicing conservation agriculture technology. Table 6: Percentage of households and their knowledge of conservation agriculture Understanding No response

19 Don t know Soil erosion control Land conservation Environmentally friendly farming Farming that improves soil fertility Farming that improves yields Planting trees and crops Planting without ploughing Planting without ploughing Farming that conserves moisture Avoiding deforestation <1 Conservation farming <1 Crop association for fertiliser <1 Crop rotation <1 Farming that conserves moisture <1 Farming a part of the farm the rest <1 left for next years Farming for saving labour <1 Farming technology that increases <1 income Farming that controls wind erosion <1 Farming that improves agriculture <1 Farming using ripper <1 Irrigation system <1 Modern agriculture using oxen or <1 tractor Modern agriculture using oxen or <1 tractor Obtaining timber <1 Planting without ploughing <1 Use of manure and mucuna <1 Weeding using herbicide < Knowledge on conservation agriculture with Trees As with results on understanding on conservation agriculture large percentage of households (79%) in all districts did not have any idea about conservation agriculture with trees (Table 7). This reflects inadequate knowledge or exposure about the technology among farmers in Tanzania. Table 7: How households understand about conservation agriculture with tree Understanding of conservation agriculture Households (No) Percentage (N=310) Have no idea about conservation agriculture with trees Planting trees and crops in the same farm

20 Response Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) All districts (N=310) Farming system that protects soil from erosion 17 5 Environmental conservation in farms 6 2 Farming that suppress weeds, controls soil erosion 3 1 Planting trees and protect them 2 1 Protects crops and soil from sunrays 1 <1 Planting trees and protect them 1 <1 Mixing the crops in the same farm 1 <1 Minimises effects of climatic changes 1 <1 Intercropping trees and leguminous crops 1 <1 Farming that improves availability of fuel, timber, fruits and 1 <1 fodder Effective use of land for overcoming food problems 1 <1 Application of tree as wind breaker in farm 1 <1 Agriculture that increases productivity 1 < How conservation agriculture technologies are disseminated Table 8 shows that Farmer Field Schools and contact farmers are appreciated by 56% and 47% of households respectively in all districts as methods for dissemination of conservation agriculture technologies. Table 8: How conservation agriculture technologies are disseminated in six districts in Tanzania Method Dissemination of Don t CA technology by FFS know Yes No Dissemination of Don t CA technology by Farmer research know Yes groups No Dissemination of Don t CA technology by contact farmer know Yes approach No Dissemination of Don t CA technology by champion know Yes farmers No Dissemination of Don t %

21 CA technology by other methods know Yes No Promotional strategies of agroforestry and conservation farming technologies The top three most effective promotional strategies for agroforestry and conservation farming technologies (Table 9) was reported are seminars and training (68%), demonstration farm (52%) and farmer to farmer knowledge sharing in community meetings (51%). All the promotional materials identified are powerful tools for promotional activities. There should be a need to be specific when choosing which strategy to use and when. Table 9: Most effective promotional strategies of agroforestry and conservation farming technologies Promotion strategy (n=310) Proportion of respondents Rank mentioning the strategy Seminar/ Trainings 68 1 Demonstration farm 52 2 Farmer to farmer sharing of knowledge in 51 3 community meetings Farmer exchange visit 50 4 Agriculture fair/ Farmers day 47 5 Radio.TV.Cinema 47 6 Field visit/ House to house 38 7 Printed materials Farmers participation in decision making on technology implementation Study finding show that households in district (60%) are less involved in decision making about technology implementation as opposed to households in the rest of the districts (Figure 5). Farmers involved in decision making are likely to choose technologies that improve their livelihoods and reduce costs. 21

22 120% 100% 97% 80% 60% 81% 74% 67% 75% 60% 71% 40% 20% 0% 19% Karatu (N=63) 26% (N=66) 3% (N=30) 33% (N=33) 25% Bukoba rural (N=61) 40% (N=57) 29% All districts (N=310) No Yes Figure 5: Proportion of households involved in decision making on CAWT technologies Support for conservation agriculture and agroforestry technologies Results from the study indicate that households in all the districts have been receiving different types of support for implementation of conservation agriculture and agroforestry technologies (Table 10Table 9). It has been revealed that that only 41% of households in all districts had benefitted from free training materials provided by stakeholders who are engaged in conservation agriculture or agroforestry. Households in (70%), Karatu (52%) and Bukoba rural (51%) are leading in receiving free training materials. It could be presence of conservation agriculture, agroforestry or sustainable land management projects has supported access to these materials. Only a few households in all districts (17%) mentioned that they have received no support on training materials or resources. Training resources are regarded as important in the improvement of knowledge and skills about conservation agriculture and subsequent facilitating adoption of the same. Access to both subsidy and credit is limited as majority of households from all districts did not have support of both subsidised inputs (58%) and credit (69%). Lack of credit and subsidised inputs are likely to affect the adoption of new technologies such as conservation agriculture especially for the poor families in the rural areas. Table 10: Percentage of households receiving various supports for implementation of CA in six districts of Tanzania Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) All districts (N=310) Free access to No training materials Yes Partial support training materials No Yes

23 No support training materials Access to subsidised inputs Access to credit facilities No Yes No Yes No Yes Other No Yes Changes on farming due to conservation agriculture Based on the different knowledge about conservation agriculture practices households that have received some changes due to the technology are presented in Table 11. Although 34% households across the six districts did not respond to the question about what changes have resulted from conservation agriculture but those who did showed that conservation agriculture is likely to reduce burden to farmers in terms time and labour spent for farming activities and increase farm productivity. Table 11: Percentages of farmers reporting changes due to conservation agriculture Response Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) All districts (N=310) No response Time and labour saving Input saving More yields Less erosion More soil fertility More soil water CAWT and climate change When asked about whether farmers see CAWT as a possible mitigation against negative effects of climate change, 64% of households in all districts said yes (Figure 6). Households in Bukoba rural (87%), (73%) and (73%) were more convinced about the role of CAWT in mitigating climate change as compared to counterpart households in the rest of the districts in the study area. 23

24 All districts (N=310) (N=57) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=33) (N=30) (N=66) Karatu (N=63) 13% 27% 27% 64% 37% 46% 54% 50% 50% 62% 38% 73% 73% 87% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Figure 6: Percentage of households perceiving that CAWT can mitigate negative effects of climate change Farmer to farmer learning about conservation agriculture Findings have revealed that 53% of households reported that their neighbours have shown interest in the in conservation agriculture as opposed to 47% who have not (Table 12). These findings however show that households in (30%) and (33%) have shown no interest in the technology. Although the reasons were not explored for the result it could be postulated that the districts other than and have much higher exposure to the technology and a number of sustainable land management projects have been implemented. Each of the households who reported some neighbours showing interest in CA also indicated how many farmers have copied the CA technologies as shown in Table 13. The main technologies copied (Table 14) were mentioned mostly to ripping (by 12% of households in all districts), agroforestry (10%), tree planting (7%) and conservation agriculture (6%). Although some of the technologies were mentioned by few households their importance are higher when one want to fully implement conservation agriculture or agroforestry and must be considered when planning for CAWT programmes and projects. Table 12: Percentage of farmers whose neighbours have shown interest in CA technologies Response Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) All districts (N=310) No Yes Table 13: The percentage of households who have reported the number of farmer neighbours who copied or asked for help on CA technologies 24

25 Range Numb er who copied or asked CA techno logy help Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) All districts (N=310) None None Source: Field data, 2011 Table 14: Percentage of households showing CA technologies copied by neighbours Technology % Technology % Ripping 12 Erosion contour 1 Agroforestry 10 Harrowing 1 Tree planting 7 Herbicides 1 Conservation agriculture 6 How to avoid land destruction 1 Planting crops 5 How to prepare seedlings in the farm 1 Controls soil erosion 4 Hand drawn CA equipments 1 Jab Planter 2 Intercropping of banana, coffee and 1 trees Manure 2 Keeping livestock 1 Mulching 2 Maintenance of crop residues 1 Planting without ploughing 2 Mixing farming 1 Ridging 2 New cassava seeds 1 Sub soiling 2 New tech of ploughing 1 Tractor drawn equipments 2 Planting of bananas and trees 1 Use of manure 2 Planting of trees 1 Using oxen 2 Planting sisal 1 Animal planter 1 Planting using improved seeds 1 Avocado planting 1 Ploughing 1 Changing of farming system 1 Protect soil fertility 1 Colona coffee from research 1 Soil conservation 1 institute Crop rotation 1 Soil cover 1 Cultivation of cotton 1 Soil cover crops 1 Disease control in potatoes 1 Sowing in proper spacing 1 Source: Field data,

26 Benefits of incorporating trees in CA system Study findings presented in Table 15 show that although 58% of households could not respond as to what benefits arise a result of incorporating trees in conservation agriculture system the rest of the households presented pertinent reasons. Sensitising farmers on these benefits could improve adoption of conservation agriculture technology with ultimate goal of improving household lives and improvement of the environment. Table 15: Percentage of household mentioning the benefits of incorporating trees in conservation agriculture system Benefits Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) All districts (N=310) No response Wood based products Soil erosion control Yield increase Soil fertility Fodder, shade, medicine No benefit Shade Income increase Microclimate improvement Environmental protection Soil moisture Land conservation Wind break and shade Beekeeping <1 Farm boundary <1 Fruits firewood <1 and shade Fruits, food <1 and fodder Manure from <1 leaves Reduce scarcity of tree <1 26

27 Minimal soil Tree intercrop Crop rotation/asso ciation seedlings Reduction <1 forest degradation Suppress weed <1 Trees are <1 harmful to crops Water conservation <1 Source: Survey data, Extent of adoption of conservation agriculture with trees The practice of conservation agriculture principles and agroforestry Survey findings show that 61% of households in all districts practice the principle of crop rotation followed by agroforestry which is implemented by 46% of households (Figure 7). These findings continue to depict that the principles of soil cover and minimum soil disturbance are poorly implemented by 21% and 19% of households across the six districts respectively. If consideration is made such that implementation of CA should encompass all the three principles then the adoption of conservation agriculture is really low. Results show that implementation of conservation agriculture and agroforestry practices across districts vary depending on the principle under consideration. Details of practice of CA principles and agroforestry are detailed in Table 16. All districts (N=310) Yes 61 No 39 Yes 46 No 54 disturbance Soil cover Yes No Yes No Percentage Figure 7: Percentage of households implementing various conservation agriculture principles and agroforestry 27

28 Table 16: Percentage of households implementing conservation agriculture and agroforestry practices Practice Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) All districts (N=310) Minimal soil disturba nce Soil cover Tree intercrop Crop rotation/ associati on No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Source: Field data, 2011 Focused group discussions and observation showed that tillage of the soil is mainly by ploughing and hand hoe. Although farmers do ploughing to improve soil structure and control weed but in the long term destroys soil structure and contribute to declining fertility and organic matter levels. It was evident from the discussions that the availability and technical knowledge of the CA equipments such as the jab planters, direct seeders, subsoilers, rippers is limited hence becoming difficult for farmers to embrace CA. Figure 8: Examples of Conventional tillage practices (Source: ACT Library) Figure 9: Examples of minimum tillage practices (Source: ACT Library) 28

29 Figure 10: Mulching and cover crops for covering the soil (Photo by Simon Lugandu, 2011 & ACT Library) Level of adoption and practice of conservation agriculture In this study the level of adoption of conservation agriculture which was considered as implementation of all the three CA principles together, stood at only 5% across the six districts. Derpsch (2001) notes that for maximum and sustainable benefits the three principles must be implemented together. This study assumes that this percentage of households constitute the group of adopter farmers. Non adopters are therefore 95% of households in all districts in the study area. Bukoba rural district has the largest number of conservation agriculture adopters (21%) followed by and Karatu (3%) and (2%). Based on the survey results, and are considered as districts still practicing conventional agriculture Karatu (N=63) (N=66) (N=30) (N=33) 21 Bukoba rural (N=61) (N=57) 2 5 All districts (N=310) Conventional agriculture Conservation agriculture Figure 11: Percentage of households implementing conservation agriculture in study districts Factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture The factors affecting adoption of conservation agriculture in the six survey districts are presented in Table 17. These results have revealed that the factors that significantly (p<0.05) affect adoption of conservation agriculture in the six study districts are access to training 29