Just wanted to plop this down, this are some of the things I ponder on the given day-to-day following visits to beneficiaries. It has been an interesting five years, moving one's head from discussions at this level to the visceral day-to-day of the everyman and everywoman farmer. Putting them together is what makes my head spin.
Sorry for the delay, power has been an
issue.
As per D’s email and our discussion, question
#2 around the adoption of CA is very interesting but very large, particularly
given that CA is three principles that are something of a goal for farmers to
achieve by what could be diverse paths (e.g., there are numerous ways to
achieve minimum tillage). However, often what tangles up the question of
adoption for many CA promoters is why aren’t people adopting “our” way of
achieving minimum tillage, soil cover and crop rotation.
A case in point: Why don’t more non-beneficiaries
dig basins? Don’t people generally see the improvements from the practice on another’s
field? Currently, we target a specific group of beneficiaries (the extreme
poor), they receive trainings and inputs, then dig basins in
which they apply the inputs and plant the seeds we’ve given them. Typically,
those beneficiaries will carry on some of the practices we promote over the
longer term, particularly around digging basins for maize production. However,
most non-beneficiaries won’t dig basins … as far as we can tell, they are
waiting for participation in the programme (e.g. the attention given to
beneficiaries in terms of inputs and training). We noted this week that our even
better-off lead farmers have almost no concept of “projects”, project lifetime or
the hard facts around funding … consequently, they are often confused why
projects come to an end before the entire community has been included in a
project. Put shortly, we need to examine our approaches to promoting CA as well
as the barriers to what we are promoting, otherwise our promotion in and of
itself may be a barrier to adoption.
As for research question #3, there’s parts that I think are extremely valuable in a
business case, which my brain boils down to primarily “Money invested in farmer
< Money realized by farmer” and secondarily as “Farmers doing CA GHG
emissions < Farmers not doing CA GHC emissions”. We generally would see
that, but we have to assume (as is sadly the case now in Western Province) that
food aid is not reaching most of our
communities; from what I hear on the ground, relief packs are trickling in, but
packs are being split between two families. However, we do know that most of
our farmers are net buyers of food and/or engage in daily labour “piecework” in
hopes of achieving their daily bread. If we’re looking at return on
investments, I feel we need to consider those as outcomes vs. an abstract
measure of food aid (e.g., does an investment in a farmer in CA mean they spend
less money on food and less on piecework in the next season.
Another point on the GHGs specifically to
the Zambia, much of the impact of last years’ drought was the sharp uptick in
charcoal production across the southern half of the country, which is significant
for a country with one of the top five deforestation rates in the world. There
is something of an argument as to whether charcoal production is demand-driven
or supply-driven given our issues with ZESCO, but I would posit that most farmers
who don’t have to make charcoal would not make charcoal, but have little other
option in light of their HH needs for food, school fees, etc. Long and short, what would a reduction in
charcoal burning do to our GHG balance / emissions?
Lastly, I would narrow down the scope of
the first bullet because we need to be cognizant of the difference between
economic demographic levels and how that might influence the opportunity costs,
rates of return, etc. What we’re picking up (and is a good example of “everything
is obvious [once you know the answer]”) from our consumption support pilot
is that crop diversification (and derived from that, rotation) is hindered by
lack of seeds on one hand, but also the simple mathematics of hunger on another
… e.g., when you have roughly two hours of kilojoules available, you focus all
of those on your crops that will provide the most kilojoules (maize and
cassava). What I’m saying is that I’d rather we avoid repeating the studies I’ve
read that look at “CA” vs. “conventional ag” ceritas paribus, e.g. one that is independent of place, and is not cognizant
of a household’s capability to measure and make long-term decisions.
Sorry for going on at length.
