Food Security

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 381–396 | Cite as

Does minimum tillage improve the livelihood outcomes of smallholder farmers in Zambia?

Original Paper

Abstract

Minimum tillage (MT) is a farming practice that reduces soil disturbance by limiting tillage only to planting stations. MT is an integral part of Climate Smart Agriculture aimed at raising agricultural productivity, improving farmer livelihoods and building climate resilient farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. However, there are questions on its suitability for smallholder farmers in the region. This paper assesses the impacts of MT on crop yield and crop income using an endogenous switching regression (ESR) model applied to cross sectional data from 751 fields, of which 17% were under MT in Zambia. The ESR framework accounts for heterogeneity in the decision to adopt MT or not and consistently predicts the outcomes of adopters and non-adopters had they not adopted and adopted, respectively. The results suggest that adopting MT was associated with an average yield gain for maize, groundnut, sunflower, soybean and cotton of 334 kg/ha but it had no significant effects on crop income (from sales and for subsistence) of households in the short-term. These results are partly explained by partial adoption: even among adopters, only 8% of cultivated land was under MT. In these circumstances, although MT confers some yield benefits, the gains may be insufficient to offset the costs of implementation and translate into higher incomes and better livelihood outcomes in the short-term. Additional costs associated with MT include implements, herbicides, and labor for weed control and for land preparation. Assumptions of labor saving from preparing land in the dry season and cost savings by reduced fuel use and weed pressure are aspirational because of the prevalent customary land tenure and communal grazing systems, and because mechanization and the use of herbicides to control weeds remain low among smallholders. Nevertheless, if the longer-term productivity gains from MT are large enough, these may offset the higher implementation costs of MT due to economies of scale and may eventually result in improved incomes and food security. These findings may help to explain the perceived low uptake rates for MT in Zambia and call for lowering implementation costs through extension specific to MT and by adapting MT to local contexts.

Keywords

Minimum tillage Impact assessment Crop yield Crop income Endogenous switching Zambia 

JEL classifications

D1 Q12 O33 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation through the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) [agreement no. GLO-3945 QZA 13/0545]. Additional funding from USAID through the Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy is acknowledged. An earlier version of this paper was published as part of my PhD thesis at the School of Economics and Business at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). I thank Arild Angelsen, three reviewers and the editors of Food Security for their very helpful comments and suggestions on the paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdulai, A., & Huffman, W. (2014). The adoption and impact of soil and water conservation technology: An endogenous switching regression application. Land Economics, 90(1), 26–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainembabazi, J. H., & Angelsen, A. (2014). Do commercial forest plantations reduce pressure on natural forests? Evidence from forest policy reforms in Uganda. Forest Policy and Economics, 40, 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alem, Y., Eggert, H., & Ruhinduka, R. (2015). Improving welfare through climate-friendly agriculture: The case of the system of rice intensification. Environmental and Resource Economics, 62(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson, J. A., & D'Souza, S. (2014). From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: A literature review of conservation agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 187, 116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arslan, A., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Asfaw, S., & Cattaneo, A. (2014). Adoption and intensity of adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 187, 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arslan, A., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Asfaw, S., Cattaneo, A., & Kokwe, M. (2015). Climate smart agriculture? Assessing the adaptation implications in Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 753–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asfaw, S., Shiferaw, B., Simtowe, F., & Lipper, L. (2012). Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia. Food Policy, 37(3), 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blinder, A. S. (1973). Wage discrimination: Reduced form and structural estimates. The Journal of Human Resources, 8(4), 436–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, B., Nuberg, I., & Llewellyn, R. (2017). Negative evaluation of conservation agriculture: Perspectives from African smallholder farmers. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15, 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Janvry, A., Fafchamps, M., & Sadoulet, E. (1991). Peasant household behavior with missing markets: Some paradoxes explained. Economic Journal, 100(409), 1400–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Falco, S., Veronesi, M., & Yesuf, M. (2011). Does adaptation to climate change provide food security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(3), 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Droppelmann, K. J., Snapp, S. S., & Waddington, S. R. (2017). Sustainable intensification options for smallholder maize-based farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Security, 9(1), 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. El-Shater, T., Yigezu, Y. A., Mugera, A., Piggin, C., Haddad, A., Khalil, Y., et al. (2016). Does zero tillage improve the livelihoods of smallholder cropping farmers? Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67, 154–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feder, G., Just, R. E., & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2), 255–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., & Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops Research, 114, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grabowski, P. P., Haggblade, S., Kabwe, S., & Tembo, G. (2014). Minimum tillage adoption among commercial smallholder cotton farmers in Zambia, 2002 to 2011. Agricultural Systems, 131, 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haggblade, S., & Tembo, G. (2003). Development, diffusion and impact of conservation farming in Zambia. Food Security Research Project working paper # 8. Lusaka: Food Security Research Project.Google Scholar
  18. Heckman, J., Tobias, J. L., & Vytlacil, E. (2001). Four parameters of interest in the evaluation of social programs. Southern Economic Journal, 68(2), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IMF (2012). Sub-Saharan Africa; Maintaining Growth in an Uncertain World. Regional Economic Outlook. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  20. IPCC. (2014). Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In V. R. Barros, C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White (Eds.), Climate Change 2014. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jahnke, H. (1982). Livestock production systems and livestock development in tropical Africa. Kiel Germany: Kieler wissenschaftsverlag vauk.Google Scholar
  22. Jaleta, M., Kassie, M., Tesfaye, K., Teklewold, T., Jena, P. R., Marenya, P., et al. (2016). Resource saving and productivity enhancing impacts of crop management innovation packages in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 47(5), 513–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jann, B. (2008). The blinder-Oaxaca decomposition for linear regression models. Stata Journal, 8(4), 453–479.Google Scholar
  24. Jayne, T. S., Sitko, N. J., Mason, N. M., & Skole, D. (2018). Input subsidy programs and climate smart agriculture: Current realities and future potential. In L. Lipper, N. McCarthy, D. Zilberman, S. Asfaw, & G. Branca (Eds.), Climate smart agriculture: Building resilience to climate change (pp. 251–273). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kassie, M., Shiferaw, B., & Muricho, G. (2011). Agricultural technology, crop income, and poverty alleviation in Uganda. World Development, 39(10), 1784–1795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuntashula, E., Chabala, L. M., & Mulenga, B. P. (2014). Impact of minimum tillage and crop rotation as climate change adaptation strategies on farmer welfare in smallholder farming systems of Zambia. Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(4), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuteya, A.N., Lukama, C., Chapoto, A. & Malata, V. (2016). Lessons Learnt from the Implementation of the E-voucher Pilot. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute Policy Brief No. 8. Lusaka: IAPRI.Google Scholar
  28. Lokshin, M., & Sajaia, Z. (2004). Maximum likelihood estimation of endogenous switching regression models. Stata Journal, 4(3), 282–289.Google Scholar
  29. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mazvimavi, K., (2011). Socio-economic analysis of conservation agriculture in southern Africa. Network paper no. 2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Emergency Office for Southern Africa, Rome, Italy. Available www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2016e/i2016e00.pdf.
  31. Ngoma, H., Mason, N. M., & Sitko, N. J. (2015). Does minimum tillage with planting basins or ripping raise maize yields? Meso-panel data evidence from Zambia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 212, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ngoma, H., Mulenga, B. P., & Jayne, T. S. (2016). Minimum tillage uptake and uptake intensity by smallholder farmers in Zambia. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 11(4), 249–262.Google Scholar
  33. Oaxaca, R. (1973). Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. International Economic Review, 14(3), 693–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pannell, D. J., Llewellyn, R. S., & Corbeels, M. (2014). The farm-level economics of conservation agriculture for resource-poor farmers. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 187, 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Powlson, D. S., Stirling, C. M., Jat, M. L., Gerard, B. G., Palm, C. A., Sanchez, P. A., & Cassman, K. G. (2015). Reply to 'No-till agriculture and climate change mitigation'. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 489–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Powlson, D. S., Stirling, C. M., Thierfelder, C., White, R. P., & Jat, M. L. (2016). Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 220, 164–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shumba, E. M., Waddington, S. R., & Rukuni, M. (1992). Tine tillage, with atrazine weed control, to permit earlier planting of maize by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. Experimental Agriculture, 28, 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singh, I., Squire, L., & Strauss, J. (1986). Agricultural household models: Extensions, applications, and policy. USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Thierfelder, C., & Wall, P. C. (2010). Investigating conservation agriculture (CA) systems in Zambia and Zimbabwe to mitigate future effects of climate change. Journal of Crop Improvement, 24(2), 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thierfelder, C., Rusinamhodzi, L., Ngwira, A. R., Mupangwa, W., Nyagumbo, I., Kassie, G. T., et al. (2015a). Conservation agriculture in southern Africa: Advances in knowledge. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 30(4), 328–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thierfelder, C., Matemba-Mutasa, R., & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2015b). Yield response of maize (Zea Mays L.) to conservation agriculture cropping system in southern Africa. Soil and Tillage Research, 146, 230–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thierfelder, C., Matemba-Mutasa, R., Bunderson, W. T., Mutenje, M., Nyagumbo, I., & Mupangwa, W. (2016). Evaluating manual conservation agriculture systems in southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 222, 112–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thierfelder, C., Chivenge, P., Mupangwa, W., Rosenstock, T. S., Lamanna, C., & Eyre, J. X. (2017). How climate-smart is conservation agriculture (CA)? – Its potential to deliver on adaptation, mitigation and productivity on smallholder farms in southern Africa. Food Security, 9(3), 537–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. UNEP. (2013). The emissions gap report 2013. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).Google Scholar
  45. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature and International Society for Plant Pathology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Food and Resource EconomicsMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI)LusakaZambia
  3. 3.School of Economics and BusinessNorwegian University of Life ScienceÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations